GIFT OF
FROM THE PRESIDENT'S OFFICE
TO THE UNIVEBSITY LIBEABY
63D CONGBESS") CT?XTATT? /DOCUMENT
Sd Session / SENATE J No>419
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION
REPORT UPON OPERATION
OF STATE LAWS
INVESTIGATION BY COMMISSION
OF
THE AMERICAN FEDERATION
OF LABOR
AND
THE NATIONAL CIVIC FEDERATION
COMMISSION'S FINDINGS
VIEWS OF EMPLOYERS AND WORKMEN
DIGEST OF LAWS
RULES OF STATE BOARDS OF AWARD
WASHINGTON
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
1914
SUBMITTED BY MB. FLETCHEB.
IN THE SENATE OP THE UNITED STATES,
February IS, 1914.
Resolved, That the report of the commission appointed by the National Civic Federa-
tion and the American Federation of Labor to study the operation of State workmen's
compensation laws be printed as a Senate document, together with the appendix
accompanying said report, and that five thousand additional copies be printed for
the use of the Senate.
Attest:
JAMES M. BAKER, Secretary.
.2
COMMISSION OF THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR AND
THE NATIONAL CIVIC FEDERATION TO STUDY OPERATION OF
STATE WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION LAWS.
[Composed of representatives of the public, employers, and labor.]
Chairman, CYRUS W. PHILLIPS, member of the former New York State Commission
on Employers' Liability, and an attorney at law, Rochester, N. Y.
J. WALTER LORD, chairman of the Maryland State Commission on Employers' Lia-
bility and Workmen's Compensation; chairman of the Civic Federation's Maryland
State council; and an attorney at law, Baltimore, Md.
OTTO M. EIDLITZ, New York Building Trades Employers' Association, New York City.
Louis B. SCHRAM, chairman labor committee, United States Brewers' Association,
Brooklyn, N. Y.
JAMES DUNCAN, vice president, American Federation of Labor, Quincy, Mass.
JOHN MITCHELL, vice president, American Federation of Labor, Mount Vernon, N. Y.
Mr. Duncan and Mr. Mitchell were appointed by the American Federation
of Labor to cooperate with the National Civic Federation.
COMMITTEE ON PLAN AND SCOPE.
OTTO M. EIDLITZ, chairman.
Louis B. SCHRAM. TIMOTHY HEALT.
SAMUEL GOMPERS. E. H. LETCHWORTH.
W. H. MARSHALL. M. F. WESTOVER.
FRANK V. WHITING. RAYNAL C. BOLLINO.
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR.
EXECUTIVE COUNCIL.
President, SAMUEL GOMPERS.
Secretary, FRANK MORRISON.
Treasurer, JOHN B. LENNON, Bloomtngton, 111.
First vice president. JAMES DUNCAN, Hancock
Building, Quincy, Mass.
Second vice president, JAMES O'CONNELL. 512
Ouray Building, Washington, D. C.
Third vice president, D. A. HAYES, 930 Wither-
spoon Building, Philadelphia, Pa.
Fourth vice president, Jos. F. VALENTINE, Com-
mercial Tribune Building, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Fifth vice president, JOHN R. ALPINE, 401-406 Bush
Temple of Music, Chicago, 111.
Sixth vice president, H. B. PERHAM, Star Build-
ing, St. Louis, Mo.
Seventh vice president, FRANK DUFFY, Carpen-
ter's Building, Indianapolis, Ind.
THE NATIONAL CIVIC FEDERATION.
EXECUTIVE COUNCIL.
SETH Low, president.
SAMUEL GOMPERS, vice president.
BENJAMIN IDE WHEELER, vice president.
ISAAC N. SELIGMAN, treasurer.
RALPH M. EASLEY, chairman Executive Council.
JOHN HAYS HAMMOND, chairman Industrial Eco-
nomics Department.
WILLIAM R. WILLCOX, chairman Welfare Depart-
ment.
M,iss MAUDE WETMORE, chairman Woman's De-
•partment.
AUGUST BELMONT, chairman Department Com-
pensation Industrial Accidents.
EMERSON MCMILLIN, chairman Department Inter-
state and Municipal Utilities.
GEORGE W. PERKINS, chairman Social Insurance
Department.
ALTON B. PARKER, chairman Department on Re-
form in Legal Procedure.
SETH Low, chairman Department on Regulation of
Industrial Corporations.
MARCUS M. MARKS, chairman Department on In-
dustrial Mediation Law.
E. R. A. SELIGMAN, chairman Taxation Depart-
ment.
D. L. CEASE, secretary.
DEPARTMENT ON COMPENSATION FOR INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENTS
AND THEIR PREVENTION— THE NATIONAL CIVIC FEDERA-
TION.
OFFICERS.
AUGUST BELMONT, chairman.
FRANCIS LYNDE STETSON, chairman committee on
legislative policy.
P. TECUMSEH SHEKMAN, chairman legal compen-
sation committee.
Louis B. SCHEAM, chairman committee on in>-
provement of State inspection of factories with
special reference to safeguarding machinery.
OTTO M. EIDLITZ chairman committee on plan
and scope, and finance.
Miss GERTRUDE BEEKS, secretary.
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
ALPINE, JOHN R. (president Association of Plumb-
ers, Gas Fitters, and Steam Fitters), Chicago.
BALDWIN, WILLIAM D. (president Otis Elevator
Co.), New York City.
BARTLETT, GEORGE A. (Member of Congress),
Tonopah, Nev.
BELMONT AUGUST (Interborough Rapid Transit
Co.), New York.
BLAINE, JOHN J. (member former industrial insur-
ance committee of Wisconsin), Boscobel, Wis.
BOHLEN, FRANCIS H. (cUairman compensation
committee, Pennsylvania Council, the National
Civic Federation), Philadelphia, Pa.
BOLLING, RAYNAL C. (assistant general solicitor,
United States Steel Corporation), New York
City.
BUCKLEY, E. R. (American Mining Congress),
Rolla, Mo.
BUTLER. CHARLES H. (chairman compensation
committee American Bar Association), Wash-
ington, D. C.
BUTLER, J. G., jr. (president Bessemer Pig Iron
Association), Youngstown, Ohio.
BYLLESBY, H. M., Chicago, 111.
CARMICAL, DREWRY A. (president Carmical Manu-
facturing Co.), Union City. Ga.
COOLIDGE, L. A. (treasurer United Shoe Machinery
Co.), Boston, Mass.
CONWAY, ROBERT E. (Armour & Co.), National
Stock Yards P. O., Illinois.
CURWEN, SAMUEL M. (J. G. Brill Co.), Philadel-
phia, Pa.
DAVIES, EDGAR T. (former chief, Illinois State fac-
tory inspection department), Chicago, 111.
DOLAN, T. J. (secretary-treasurer International
Brotherhood of Steam Shovel and Dredge Men),
Chicago.
DONAHUE, CHARLES J. (State Federation of Labor),
Derby, Conn.
DUNCAN, JAMES (president Granite Cutters' Inter-
national Association of America), Quincy, Mass.
DU PONT, PIERRE S. (E. I. du Pont de Nemours
Powder Co.), Wilmington, Del.
EIDLITZ, OTTO M. (New York Building Trades
Employers' Association), New York City.
ESPENHAIN, F. "K. (president Espenhain Dry
Goods Co.), Milwaukee, Wis.
ESTABROOK, HENRY D. (attorney), New York City.
FAXON, WALTER C. (vice president the /Etna Life
Insurance Co.) Hartford.
FISH, FREDERICK S. (Studebaker Bros. Manufac-
turing Co.), South Bend. Ind.
FISKE, HALEY (vice president Metropolitan Insur-
ance Co.), New York City.
GARRETSON, A. B. (president Order of Railway
Conductors), Cedar Rapids, Iowa.
GILLETTE, GEORGE M. (Minnesota Employers'
Association), Minneapolis.
GODARD, A. A. (attorney), Topeka, Kans.
GOMPERS, SAMUEL (president American Federa-
tion 01 Labor), Washington, D. C.
HAMILTON, GRANT (chairman compensation for
industrial accidents committee, District of Co-
lumbia Council, the National Civic Federation),
Washington, D. C.
HAYES, DENIS A. (president Glass Bottle Blowers'
Association), Philadelphia.
HEALY, TIMOTHY (president Inte rnational .Broth-
erhood of Stationary 1- ireinen), New Yo "k.
HERR, EDWIN M. (president Westinghouse Elec-
tric & Air Brake Company), Pittsburgh.
HOYT, COLGATE (banker), New York city.
HUBER, WILLIAM D. president United Brother-
hood of Carpenters) Indianapolis.
JAMES, FRANCIS B. (attorney), Cincinnati, Ohio,
JONES, RICHARD, jr. (Republic Iron & Steel Co';),
Pittsburgh, Pa.
LORD, J. WALTER (chairman Maryland State com-
mission on workmen's .compensation and chafip-
man Maryland State Council, the National Civic
Federation), Baltimore, Md.
LYNCH, JAMES M. (president International Typo-
graphical Union), Indianapolis, Ind.
MACY, V. EVERIT (publicist), New York City.
MARKS, MARCUS M. (National Association of Cloth-
iers), New York City.
MARSHALL, W. H. (president American Locomo-
tive Co.), New York City.
METZ, HERMAN A. (U. A. Metz & Co.), New York
City.
PARKER, LEWIS W. (president Parker Cotton
Mills Co.), Greenville, S. C.
PHILLIPS, CYRUS W. (member former New Yor£
State commission on employers' liability), Roch-
ester", N. Y.
PORTER, A. J. (president the Shredded Wheat Co.),
Niagara Falls, N. Y. •
SELLERS, E. B. (chairman compensation commit-
tee. Indiana Council, the National Civic Federa-
tion), Mont icello. Ind.
SMITH, GEORGE W. (Lackawanna Steel Co.), Buf-
falo, N. Y.
SNOW, ELLIOT (naval constructor, United States
Navy, William Cramp & Sons Steamship and
Engine Buildinc Co.), Philadelphia.
SCHRAM Louis B. (chairman labor committee
United States Brewers' Association), Brooklyn.
N.Y.
STARRING, MASON B. (president United Railways
Investment Co.), New York.
STETSON, FRANCIS LYNDE (attorney), New York
City.
TAYLOR, WTILLIAM H. (president St. Clair Coal Co.),
Scranton, Pa.
TERRY, CHARLES THADDEUS .'president Conference
of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws), New
York City.
TOBIN. JOHN F. (president Boot and Shoe Work-
ers' Union), Boston, Mass.
TOMPKINS, D. A. (president the D. A. Tompkins
Co.), Charlotte, NT C.
ULLMAN. COL. ISAAC M. (corset manufacturer),
New Haven, Conn.
WILEY, Louis (the New York Times), New York
City.
WILLIAMS, JOHN (former commissioner of labor,
State of New York), Albany, N. Y.
WOODRUFF, ROLLIN S. (president C. S. Mersick &
Co.), New Haven, Conn.
And officers and chairmen of committees.
CONTENTS.
Section No. Page.
Introduction 9
Plan and scope of inquiry 9
Attitude of employers and workmen and interest shown 10
I. Uniformity of legislation 13
II. The principle of workmen's compensation 13
III. Further extension of employers' liability in absence of compensation
laws 14
IV. Questions involved should be considered separately
V. Elective versus compulsory acts 15
VI. Defenses abrogated under 'elective acts 17
VII. Extent to which compensation has been adopted.* 17
Reasons for accepting or rejecting the elective acts 19
VIII.. Trend of legislation 20
IX. Satisfaction with compensation acts as against liability laws 20
X. Effect upon relation between employer and employee 21
XI. Effect on accident prevention 23
XII. Insurance of employers doing business in different States 24
XIII. Nonresident aliens 25
XIV. Employments covered 26
XV. Injuries covered 27
Injuries arising out of and in the course of employment 27
What are accidental injuries 1 28
XVI. Contractors' liability to employees of subcontractors 29
XVII. Exclusiveness of remedy 30
XVIII. Medical and surgical aid 31
XIX. Waiting period 37
XX. Amount of compensation 39
XXI. Contribution by employees 41
XXII. Litigation under compensation acts 42
XXIII. Administration by industrial accident boards 43
XXIV. Methods of insuring 48
Policies for benefit of workmen and for unlimited liability 53
Carrying own risk 53
Making deposit 55
XXV. Cost of compensation 56
Statistics 58
XXVI. Summary and conclusions 58
APPENDIX.
1. Digest of principal provisions of statutes in force January 1, 1914 63
Election — how made 63
Employments covered 66
Injuries covered 72
Medical and surgical aid 73
Waiting period 75
Amount of compensation —
Total disability 76
Partial disability 81
Loss of members 84
Death benefits 92
Who are dependents 100
Determination of amount of compensation and settlement of disputes. 106
Exclusiveness of remedy 113
Methods of insurance 114
7
8 CONTENTS.
Pagei
2. Rules adopted by State boards or commissions 124
Massachusetts 124
Michigan 126
California 127
Ohio 131
3. Statement typical of methods of administration pursued by State boards or
commissions 138
Wisconsin 138
4. Forms used by State boards 140
Massachusetts 140
Michigan • 146
California 151
4A. Forms — receipts for compensation payments 152
Michigan 152
Massachusetts 153
5. Medical and surgical aid 154
Recommendations made by Massachusetts medical advisory com-
mittee 154
Report to Massachusetts Industrial Accident Board by insurance com-
panies 155
Medical and surgical fee schedules adopted by two insurance com-
panies 155
Surgeon's fee bill, Ohio 158
Hospitals 161
SA. Malingering 163
6. Acceptances and rejections of elective acts by employers 165
7. Suggestions by employers for amendment of laws 180
7A. Statistics 198
California 198
Massachusetts 207
Michigan 210
Ohio 211
Washington v 212
8. Itinerary of commission and names of public officials, employers, labor rep-
resentatives, and insurance officials 213
9. Boards of award — workmen's compensation commissions 251
INTRODUCTION.
Lack of uniformity in State laws upon the subject and the neces-
sity of securing facts to assist employers, workmen, and legislators
to decide rightfully when promoting new legislation caused the Na-
tional Civic Federation, through its department on compensation
for industrial accidents and their prevention, to form a commission
to study the operation of State workmen's compensation acts.
The American Federation of Labor was invited to cooperate, and
the executive council of that body named two of its members to act
upon the commission.
It was the belief that such an investigation would be of benefit not
only to States which have not yet enacted compensation legislation
but also to those in which laws have been passed; that by bringing
out the respective merits and demerits of the various laws there
would be afforded a clearer understanding of the difficulties involved
and a more definite and exact knowledge of the benefits to be derived
from this great reform; and that the inquiry would assist in further
development along just and sound economic lines, tend toward se-
curing uniformity of legislation in the different States, and aid in
bringing about a better feeling of cooperation between employer and
workman.
PLAN AND SCOPE OF INQUIRY.
The purpose of the commission was to ascertain the facts with re-
gard to the operation of workmen's compensation laws, rather than
to report upon theories or to make recommendations. The intent
was the use of the information by the Civic Federation in drafting
a new model workmen's compensation law.
The scope of the inquiry was comprehensive and involved personal
conferences and hearings in the States having had the most experience
and typifying different schemes or plans of compensation. There
were included various types of elective acts and compulsory State
insurance laws.
Some of the questions upon which information was secured were:
" Degree of satisfaction given by compensation as against liability
laws;" "The value of elective versus compulsory compensation laws;"
" Reasons for accepting or rejecting elective acts;" "The amount of
compensation;" "Contributions by employees;" "Methods of insur-
ing;" "Cost -of compensation;" " Exclusiveness of compensation
remedy;" "Employers' defenses abrogated under elective acts;"
"Employments covered;" "Nonresident alien dependents;" "Con-
tractors liable to employees of subcontractors;" "Length of waiting
period;" "Medical and surgical aid;" "Effect on prevention of acci-
dents;" "Litigation under compensation acts;" "Methods of admin-
istration;" and "Effect upon relations of employer and workman."
9
10 WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
The commission covered a sufficient area to represent in effect all
interests in the entire country. Members of the commission visited
various cities in 8 of the 22 States having compensation laws, all
the way from Massachusetts and New Jersey in the East, Ohio,
Michigan, Illinois, and Wisconsin in the Central West, to California
and Washington on the Pacific Coast. Conferences were had with
State commissions or accident boards charged with administering
the laws, representatives of both the employer and the employed, and
of insurance companies. Nevada, Kansas, Minnesota, Rhode Island,
and New Hampshire were covered by correspondence.
The labor viewpoint as to the benefits derived from workmen's
compensation legislation was especially sought.
Letters of inquiry and questionnaires were sent approximately to
25,000 employers in the 12 States having had sufficient experience
to provide data of value, and to the secretaries of all State and city
branches of the American Federation of Labor in those States. The
answers received covered these branches and employers representing
a pay roU of $358,640,383.
ATTITUDE OF EMPLOYERS AND WORKMEN AND INTEREST SHOWN.
The compensation statutes having been in operation in any of the
States but a short time, neither official nor general experience under
the law was as complete as desirable. Consequently information was
frequently limited to particular phases of the problem. In fact,
those whom the commission met were hi many cases seeking infor-
mation, and realized the necessity for their own education on the
subject. As a rule, the person tes tifying saw the question under
discussion from his own viewpoint or experience, which resulted at
times in one employer at a conference combating the arguments pre-
sented by another.
One of the obvious facts educed was the apparent honesty of pur-
pose with which those conferring with the commission approached
the subject. A reasonable inference is that employers and em-
ployees in general throughout the country are viewing the compen-
sation problem with a desire to be fair and just. Differences hi
attitude may safely be attributed either to a misunderstanding of
the subject or to the effect of seeing it from a limited viewpoint,
sources of error to be remedied by experience. The employer who
complains of the law because it requires him to pay compensation
for an accident hi which he is clearly not to blame, or whicn possibly
may be due to the fault of the injured person, will get a proader
view of the law when later he is relieved from a liability suit with
full damages hi a case in which he has been wholly at fault. Like-
wise the employee who receives no compensation, for the reason that
his injury incapacitates him for a time shorter than the legal waiting
period, will get a different and a better idea of the law later when he
or some fellow worker meets with a permanent injury, and receives
compensation promptly without controversy.
Throughout the inquiry it was found that employers, workmen,
public officials, and insurance agents were keen in their desire to aid
the commission. So great was the interest that officials of employ-
ers' associations and labor organizations were able to obtain from
among their members an attendance at conferences hi immediate
INTRODUCTION. 11
response to telephone requests. The representatives of these asso-
ciations and organizations actively aided the commission and ex-
tended many courtesies. Public officials charged with the adminis-
tration of the law generously tendered their services, devoted entire
days to the conferences, and furnished information whenever called
upon. The commission desires here to express thanks to these rep-
resentatives and officials, as well as to the employers and workmen
who have responded to the letters and questionnaires. The names
appear in Appendix No. 8. The assistance given was helpful beyond
expectation. Several thousand of the question schedules have been
returned to the commission fully answered; in hundreds of cases ex-
tended views of the employers were expressed. The principal offi-
cials of the trade unions hi the several States visited expressed at
length the attitude of the union men with respect to the various acts
and stated their aims with regard to desired legislation or amend-
ments to existing legislation. Voluminous testimony was taken at
the conferences.
REPORT OF THE COMMISSION.
To Messrs. SAMUEL GOMPERS,
President of the American Federation of Labor, and
AUGUST BELMONT,
Cliairman of the Workmen's Compensation Depart-
ment, the National Civic Federation.
GENTLEMEN: The commission appointed in July, 1914, to investi-
gate the operation of State workmen's compensation acts respect-
fully submits herewith its report:
I. UNIFORMITY OF LEGISLATION.
Employers strongly expressed their desire for substantial uni-
formity in legislation. The employer who is engaged in construc-
tion work in several States, as well as the manufacturer who oper-
ates plants in different States, or who sends men from one vState to
another to install machinery, desires uniformity of legislation,
especially in the methods of administration.
Uniformity of cost is an element of vital interest to employers.
For this reason they have frequently asked, first, that the elective
acts of their States be made compulsory, so that all employers may
compete on the same basis; and secondly, that there be uniformity
in cost under the acts of the various States. In expressing this view,
one employer said to the commission:
There should be uniformity as between the amounts paid in different States. It
stands to reason that if the manufacturers in one State should pay 75 per cent of the
wages earned by the workmen and those in an adjoining State, for instance, should
pay from 35 to 40 per cent, the manufacturers of the first State would be at a disad-
vantage. It is immaterial, BO long as you have a fixed method, whether the amount
paid is one sum or another.
Naturally this uniformity could not be attained in the early stages
of the legislation. The experience gained by the States in following
their different methods is valuable. The uniformity desirable will
undoubtedly come as a result of the adoption by eacn State of those
provisions of the various acts which experience shows give the beet
results.
H. THE PRINCIPLE OF WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION. _.
The principle of workmen's compensation is that industry in gen-
eral should bear the financial burden of all industrial accidents rather
than the workers who happen to be the victims of particular acci-
dents, and that the only way this can be accomplisned is through
the agency of the employer who, in computing costs and fixing the
price of his finished product will include the industrial losses due to
accidents.
13
14 WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
Industrial operations being broadly considered, the question of
direct fault is not material. The fact that loss of bodily faculty and
regular wages occurs entitles the victim to compensation unless his
injuries have been received through his own willful intent. In this
concept of social obligation the compensation principle differs from
the old system of employers' liability, under which the employer
Eaid damages only where the accident was due to his fault or the
lult of his servants.
HI. FURTHER EXTENSION OF EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY IN ABSENCE
OF COMPENSATION LAWS.
The liability of employers under the liability act could have been
and undoubtedly will be further increased by the enactment of safety
requirements and regulations, the violation of which would imply
negligence and create liability on the part of the employers. This
phase of the subject is illustrated by Federal law. Under the safety
appliance act affecting interstate railroad employees, as interpreted
by the United States Supreme Court, the employer is under an
at solute duty not only to install specified safety appliances but to
keep them in order. The original argument of the railroad com-
panies was that, having installed safety appliances as required by
the statute, their full duty was performed by using reasonable
care in keeping them in order, but this contention the Supreme Court
overruled, deciding that the duty imposed upon the railroad com-
pany to install the safety appliances was a continuing one and that the
company was liable to an employee injured from failure to keep the
appliances in older. From this it is apparent that if compensation
had not been proposed the employers' liability would ultimately
have been greatly increased both by the removal of the defenses
hereinafter referred to and the adoption of strict safety requirements.
Since it is certain that liability laws, based as they are upon neligence
or the violation of a statutory duty, can never reach all accidents,
as many can not be traced to legal fault of any kind, an employer
would have found himself under the burden of an expensive lia-
bility law without affording protection to all of his employees.
IV. QUESTIONS INVOLVED SHOULD BE CONSIDERED SEPARATELY.
At the very outset of its inquiry the commission became convinced
that each of the problems arising under existing compensation acts
should be considered separately, and that much of the confusion that
exists upon the subject is due to the fact that public opinion with
regard to a particular statute is controlled and influenced by some
particular feature of the law, when, as a matter of fact, that
particular feature is merely incidental and not essential to the
operation of the principle of workmen's compensation. This be-
came apparent, for example, when persons were found criticizing
compensation legislation in general, when as a fact their antipathy
had been aroused merely by reason of a particular defect or through
faulty method of administration which could easily have been cured;
on the other hand, persons were found praising a particular method
of administration in their own State, entirely unmindful of the fact
that equally fortunate results had been reached under other methods
in other States.
KEPOET OF COMMISSION. 15
The principle of granting compensation to injured workmen, regard-
less of fault, is the essential attribute of a compensation act; that
principle should be tested upon its own merits. The methods of
administration and of insuring the payment of compensation are
entirely separable from the consideration of the principle of work-
men's compensation. During the inquiry the commission found dif-
ferences of opinion as to administrative and insurance matters among
those who agreed as to the principle of workmen's compensation,
and attempt has been made here to separate these various questions
so that each may be considered by itself.
V. ELECTIVE VERSUS COMPULSORY ACTS.
The Court of Appeals of New York held, in the Ives case, that the
compulsory compensation act involved in that decision — the first
act passed in the State, in 1910 — was unconstitutional, inasmuch as
making an employer liable to pay compensation to an injured work-
man for an injury due to no fault or neglect of law upon the part of
the employer was "a taking of property without due process of law."
The court held that a statute could properly remove the defense of
contributory negligence as well as that of the fellow-servant rule,
but that the defense of assumption of risk could not be abrogated
except where the risk involved some fault or neglect of duty upon
the part of the employer; that is, the law could not be abrogate the
assumption by the employee of the inherent risks of an occupation.
A year later the Supreme Court of the State of Washington, in sus-
taining the compulsory act of that State, was not in agreement with
the New York Court of Appeals, although it claimed that the Wash-
ington statute was different from that of New York.
It will be noted that the New York compulsory act involved in the
Ives decision did not make compensation the exclusive remedy of the
employee; it retained as against the employer all existing liabilities
based on negligence, and in addition attempted to create for the
employee the right to compensation for accidents regardless of fault,
thus permitting the injured employee to elect after an accident which
remedy he would pursue. In other words, the effect of this statute
was to create a compensation act covering the accidents in which no
fault or negligence on the part of the employer was involved, and
retaining for the employee his rights under the liability law for all
accidents due to the fault or negligence of the employer.
Aside from the Washington decision sustaining the act of that
State, no court has as yet determined the constitutionality of a
statute creating a compensation act covering all injuries regardless
of fault and making such act the exclusive remedy of the employee.
Since the decision in the Ives case declaring the workmen's compen-
sation act of 1910 unconstitutional, 22 States, including New York,
have adopted compensation acts, all elective with the exception of
Washington, though California, Ohio, and New York have amended
their constitutions in this respect, and have enacted compulsory acts
which went into effect on January 1, 1914.1
The method of making the election varies in different States. In
some States the employer is required to signify his acceptance of the
i In Wyoming, a constitutional amendment has been passed by the legislature and will be submitted
to the people at the general election in November, 1914.'
16 WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
law by an affirmative act, such as filing a written statement to that
effect with a specified board or official and notifying his employees.
In certain States the employer is presumed to have accepted the act
unless he files a statement to the contrary.
New Jersey was the first State to adopt the latter method. The
result there was that as very few employers notified their employees
of their election not to accept the act, nearly all the employers were
brought under its operation. The success of the New Jersey act in
respect to its acceptance is generally attributed to this method of
election. However, Massachusetts and Michigan have since been
nearly, if not quite, as successful in bringing employers and employees
under compensation, although to do so an affirmative act is required
from the employer.
While the New Jersey method has been fruitful in establishing the
proportion of employers coming under the act at a maximum, it has
manifest disadvantages. The commission found among employers
in Michigan and Massachusetts a more widespread interest in the
principle of compensation than in New Jersey, with a corresponding
stricter observance of the spirit of the law. This must be ascribed
to the fact that employers in these two States came under the act
with their eyes open, testifying by a voluntary act that they believed
in the principle and submitted to the law, while in New Jersey
employers in general are under the law automatically, many with-
out having given it thought or attention. The spirit of cooperation
existing between employer and employee hi Massachusetts and
Michigan is a public benefit, and in so far as that spirit may be due
to the fact that the law is elective and its acceptance was voluntary
the law is entitled to full credit.
In the early stages of workmen's compensation, an elective law
accepted by affirmative action, while defective to the extent that it
did not fairly regulate competition between employers and did not
uniformly protect the workmen, was more educational in its effects
than either a compulsory act or an elective act of the New Jersey type.
However, other States have had, and will continue to have, the
benefits of the educational advantages of the Massachusetts and
Michigan acts and are now following the elective methods of the
New Jersey act. Furthermore, the arguments that favor an elective
as against a compulsory act do not apply at present with the same
force as in the tentative period of workmen's compensation in this
country.
There was found among employers considerable sentiment for
compulsory compensation. It was argued that the employer volun-
tarily accepting compensation should not be placed at a competitive
disadvantage with the neglectful or less humane employer refusing
to accept it, and that hence the law should be compulsory. Natur-
ally, in those States in which the elective act has been generally
accepted, the demand for a compulsory act is not so urgent; yet
employers in them not under the act are in many cases not likely to
pay damages, even in case of fault, unless forced to, and they are
less likely to carry insurance for the protection of their employees.
In fact, employers in States where insurance is required, complained
that whereas by accepting the compensation act they are required to
carry insurance, the employers who refused to accept the act escape
its responsibilities, including the requirements for carrying insurance
REPORT OF COMMISSION. 17
for the protection of even those employees who may be injured
through their own fault.
Whatever differences of opinion were presented to the commission
by employers as to the wisdom or advantage of a compulsory act,
there was no difference among the workmen on this question. Their
testimony was uniformly in favor of a comprehensive compulsory act,
with such insurance requirements as would fully protect injured
workmen and their dependents.
In its report for the year 1913, the Massachusetts Industrial Acci-
dent Board says:
It has become evident that as a matter of justice and public welfare, compensation
acts should be uniform and compulsory and apply to all employees and occupations
alike. For about one-quarter of the employees and their families in Massachusetts
to be left practically unprotected from evils consequent upon occupational injuries
is unsatisfactory as a permanent condition. The reason for making such laws elective
in form, as has been done in most of the States which have adopted them, is to avoid
possible constitutional objections. The elective method makes a needlessly compli-
cated and cumbersome legal and administrative enforcement of the act.
VI. DEFENSES ABROGATED UNDER ELECTIVE ACTS.
Under an elective compensation act an employer is given his
choice of accepting the act or operating under the liability law with
certain long recognized defenses removed. These defenses are
assumption of risk, the fellow-servant rule, and contributory negli-
gence. Exceptions in the abrogation of defenses were made in
Texas and in Wisconsin under its original compensation act; in these
two States the doctrine of comparative negligence was substituted for
the defense of contributory negligence, and the negligence of the
injured person was to be considered by the jury only as an element
in reducing the amount of damages. By the amended Wisconsin
act, contributory negligence is now abrogated in that State.
The increased liability upon employers by the removal of the
common law defenses would undoubtedly have been brought about
by legislation even in the absence of the alternative of an elective
compensation act. The tendency of legislation being toward the
ultimate elimination of these defenses, their removal can not truly
be regarded as a means of compelling employers to accept the com-
pensation act; it was the natural outcome of the revolt against the
existing liability law. Not only is this evidenced by several State
laws but by the Federal law covering the liability of railroad com-
panies to interstate employees, as under the latter, without the
alternative of a compensation act, the assumption of risk and the
fellow-servant rule have been removed as defenses and the doctrine
of comparative negligence substituted for contributory negligence.
VII. EXTENT TO WHICH COMPENSATION HAS BEEN ADOPTED.
Legislation for compensation received its real start in the United
States in the creation by the New York Legislature in 1909 of a
commission to study the subject of employers' liability and the causes
of industrial accidents. That commission reported to the legislature
two bills. One provided for compulsory compensation in certain
specified hazardous employments. This act as passed did not take
the place of the employers' liability law, but was an addition to it,
the workman having his option after the accident either to accept
30003— S. Doc. 419, 63-2 2
18 WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
compensation under the act or to assert his rights under the liability
law. The second bill modified the employer's defenses by abrogat-
ing the assumption of risk, placing upon the defendant the burden
of proof as to contributory negligence, and considerably modifying
the fellow-servant rule, and provided for elective compensation, which
became the sole remedy where it was accepted by both the employer
and the employee. The first of these two acts was declared uncon-
stitutional in the court of appeals in the Ives case. The second, or
elective, act was accepted by a few employers only, owing largely to
the fact that it required a separate acceptance as between the employer
and each employee, with acknowledgment before a notary public.
However, a great many employers in New York accepted the spirit
of the act and attempted to adjust their accident cases in accord-
ance therewith, although of course the employees in case of injury
were not bound by it and could refuse to accept the compensation and
assert their remedy under the liability law.
New York adopted, in December, 1913, a compulsory compensation
act covering certain specified employments. As already stated, in
the 22 States which have adopted the principle, all of the compensa-
tion acts in operation are elective except those of New York and
Washington and the new acts of Ohio and California, which went
into operation January 1, 1914. New York, California, and Ohio
amended their constitutions so as to admit the adoption of their
compulsory acts. The constitutionality of the Washington act, sus-
tained by the supreme court of that State without the aid of a State
constitutional amendment, is now a question before the Federal courts.
Compensation acts were adopted by the following 22 States in the
order named : New York,1 Washington, Kansas, Nevada, New Jersey,
California, Wisconsin, Ohio, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Illinois,
Michigan, Maryland, Rhode Island, Arizona, West Virginia, Oregon,
Texas, Iowa, Nebraska, Minnesota, and Connecticut.
Activities at present are indicated by commissions existing in the
following States, where, with the exception of Maryland, no compen-
sation legislation has been enacted: Colorado, which has issued a
report; Idaho, Indiana, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, which has
reported and recommended a bill; Missouri, North Dakota, Pennsyl-
vania, Tennessee, and Vermont, as well as Porto Rico. In Kentucky,
Mississippi, and Oklahoma public officials, manufacturers' associa-
tions, or labor unions have taken the lead in agitating or preparing
bills to be introduced at an early time.
In New Jersey the commission which was responsible for the pres-
ent act has continued its existence to recommend amendments.
Delaware and Montana had commissions which dissolved without
definite results.
Lists of boards of award where laws have been enacted, and work-
men's compensation commissions in States where there are no laws,
will be found in Appendix No. 9.
The total number of employers and employees in these States who
have accepted the compensation acts can not be definitely ascer-
tained. In Washington the law is compulsory and covers about
i Declared unconstitutional. Present New York law enacted December, 1913; in effect for administrative
purposes Jan. 1, 1914, and for compensation payments July 1, 1914. The Montana law passed in 1909—
afterwards declared unconstitutional— was the first legislative act where liability to pay was based on the
hazard of a particular employment. The Maryland act of 1902, also declared unconstitutional, provided
only for death benefits to dependents.
EEPOET OF COMMISSION. 19
7,000 employers and 160,000 employees; in Michigan 10,760 employ-
ers and 475,408 employees have accepted the act; in California 1,100
employers and 100,000 employees; in New Hampshire 21 employers
and 23,000 employees; in Ohio 2,711 employers and 171,113 em-
ployees; in Massachusetts 17,000 employers and 650,000 employees;
and in Rhode Island 2,018 employers and 140,000 employees. In
West Virginia, the act has been accepted by 1,465 employers, cover-
ing 143,706 workmen, 73,253 of whom are engaged in coal mining.
In Massachusetts a fraction over 80 per cent of the accidents occur-
ring in industry during the year ending July 1, 1913, came under
the compensation act.
In Massachusetts among those who have not accepted the act are
several large employers who desire to carry their own risk, and wko
maintain the plan of compensation established by themselves, which
they could not do if under the act. Their employees, however, while
thus being given the benefit of a plan similar to that of compensa-
tion are, as a result of the employer not having accepted the actual
liberty to refuse the offered compensation and sue under the liability
law with the employer's defenses removed.
The original Wisconsin act was accepted by 2,028 employers and
149,164 employees. During the year ending June 30, 1913, 44.6 per
cent of the accidents reported were under the compensation act.
Under the new Wisconsin act, which became effective June 30, 1913,
all employers and employees are covered unless they elect to reject
the act; consequently it can not be ascertained just how many em-
Eloyers and employees are under the act. However, it is reported
y the Wisconsin Industrial Commission that in the month of Decem-
ber, 1913, 95.9 per cent of all accidents happening in industries of
Wisconsin were under compensation.
In Kansas the compensation act has been rejected by 500 employ-
ers; in Nevada by 100; in Minnesota by 44, employing about 2,000
persons, while it is estimated by the State department of labor that
about 250,000 employees are subject to the act.
The California compulsory act is estimated as covering 600,000
additional employees since January 1, 1914; the compulsory Ohio
act covered approximately 1,000,000 after January 1; while the New
York act will probably cover close to 2,000,000 after July 1 next.
The Oregon act will not go into effect until July 1, 1914, its opera-
tion having been suspended by a referendum, the vote on which was
taken at the last election and the act approved. The Nebraska act
is suspended by a referendum, but the vote will be taken on this law
during the year 1914.
REASONS FOB ACCEPTING OR REJECTING THE ELECTIVE ACTS.
Employers accepting the law gave to the commission various rea-
sons for so doing. To many, a belief in the principle of compensation
seemed sufficient, while others had convinced themselves that it makes
for certainty in cost and removes litigation.
In only a few States did a large proportion of the employers reject
the act. The reasons quite frequently show that the rejection was
due more to a lack of interest in the subject or to a want of knowledge
of the law than to any positive objection.
20 WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
In States where employers gave well-defined reasons for their fail-
ure to accept the law, in general they stated that they had no oppo-
sition to the principle of workmen's compensation but, in fact, that
they favored it, and their sole objections were to the form of the law.
In New Hampshire and Kansas, where a large proportion of the
employers refused to accept the compensation act, the main reason
given was that it was "a one-sided affair" in that if the employer
elected to come under it he would be bound by the act while the
employee had an option after the accident of accepting the compen-
sation or asserting his rights under the liability law. (See Section
XVII, where this subject is discussed.) The employers of Ohio were
very slow in accepting the act, stating as their reason that, as they
would ba compelled to take their insurance in the State fund, they
would be deprived of any option in insuring. (See Section XXI V,
where the method of insurance is discussed.)
The reasons for accepting or rejecting the law presented to the
commission by many employers are shown in Appendix No. 6.
VHI. TREND OF LEGISLATION.
Important changes in the compensation acts, indicating a general
trend in legislation, are, in Illinois, the creation of an industrial acci-
dent board to administer the law and broadening the scope of the
law to cover practically all except casual employments; in California,
change in the waiting period from one week to two weeks, increasing
the benefits for total permanent disability to last through life, and
making the principal contractor liable to the employees of a subcon-
tractor; in Ohio and California, changes from an elective to a com-
pulsory system through new acts; in New York, the enactment of a
compulsory law; and in California and Wisconsin the acts made the
exclusive remedy. The new California act recognizes the principle
that injuries to employers who perform labor incidental to their occu-
pations and the members of the families of such employers engaged
in the same occupation are properly chargeable to the cost of oper-
ating the business and to that end provides that the State Compen-
sation Insurance Fund may, in issuing its policies, include such em-
ployers and such members of their families. (As to suggestions made
to the commission for changes in the law, see Appendix No. 7.)
IX. SATISFACTION WITH COMPENSATION ACTS AS AGAINST LIA-
BILITY LAWS.
The commission found a growing satisfaction with compensation
laws among both employers and workmen. All suggestions for
changes related to the compensation law, no one seriously thinking
of repealing it or going back to the old liability system. Persons at-
tended the conferences who had originally opposed the compensation
plan but who, after experience under it, expressed their warm ap-
proval of its principles. Among these, beside both large and small
employers, were workmen. A large employer in the State of Wis-
consin said:
I believe the employers of the State of Wisconsin are satisfied with the provisions
of the workmen's compensation act as applicable to this State. Many of tnem have
availed themselves of the provisions of the act from the inception thereof; and that
REPORT OF COMMISSION. 21
number has been largely increased since the legislature of the State has adopted
amendments thereto which were deemed necessary. Our corporation accepted the
act when it took effect in this State. While there are some provisions of the law as
it now exists which many of us would like amended, they are of a minor nature and
do not affect the bill seriously as a whole. Generally speaking, I would say the
manufacturers and employers throughout the State are satisfied with the act.
A representative of the California State Federation of Labor, in
discussing this point, said:
In going to our State legislature two years ago, I felt that labor should ask for the
elimination of the common law defenses rather than compensation laws, but my
experience and the knowledge acquired during the past two years at the sessions of
the State legislature has convinced me that labor was in error and that an adequate
compensation law is to be preferred to a wide open liability law.
The very fact that the elective laws have been so generally adopted
voluntarily by employers shows that there is a general satisfaction
with this principle and that employers look upon the law as a fair
and proper method of adjusting losses occurring through industrial
accidents. The commission was unable to find cases of employees
refusing to accept the law after their employers had accepted it;
nor did they find any attempt to induce employees to reject the law
after their employers had come under the act. It was generally
conceded that the operation of the law is improving the relation
between employer and employee and that it has removed a great
source of annoyance, irritation, and social injustice.
That there is basis for the satisfaction expressed by workmen, is
illustrated by the condition in Massachusetts where it appears from
the report of the Massachusetts Industrial Accident Board for 1913
that the dependents of the employees killed and who were not under
the compensation act received in toto only about one-third of the
amount they would have received had they been under the com-
pensation act. In its report the board states that had the employees
referred to been under the workmen's compensation act, a total of
$164,488 would have been due either for funeral expenses or as pay-
ments to dependents, whereas only $60,322.42 was paid — an average
payment in each case of $701.42, as against the average sum of
$1,900.57 that would have been due the beneficiaries, had the em-
ployees been under the compensation act.
X. EFFECT UPON RELATION BETWEEN EMPLOYER AND
EMPLOYEE.
The introduction of workmen's compensation laws has opened the
way for the establishment of more amicable relations between em-
ployers and employees. In their operation, the acts necessarily
provide an opportunity for workmen and employers to meet and
consider questions relating to compensation and accident prevention.
Indirectly, these meetings, promoting as they do acquaintanceship
between employers and workmen, lead to the discussion of other
questions which affect their common interests. As a consequence,
many of the causes of misunderstanding which arose because of the
failure of the two sides to confer have been removed, and a better
and mutually advantageous relationship has been established.
Under the old system the litigation growing out of industrial acci-
dents led to discord and friction, with injurious consequences which
22 WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
could not be calculated. The tendency was distinctly to drive the
employer and the employee farther apart. In contrast to that sys-
tem, trie operation of compensation laws has tended to bring about a
communty of interest and a difference in sentiment that has improved
even the trade relationship. Compensation in an industry has been
a benefit to the whole of it and all engaged in it.
The testimony on this point is uniform. Its significance may be
seen in the following quotations:
The secretary of the Michigan State Federation of Labor, speaking
of the Michigan act, said:
I might say personally that I feel that it is the most gratifying law that we laborers
ever had. People that were fighting the law at the very beginning are to-day most
ardent supporters of it.
The Michigan district president of the United Mine Workers said to
the commission:
Regarding the importance of this act in the field generally, it is thought to be the
best thing possible for the miners of Michigan. There are changes that we would like
to make, but I want to say this: It has tended to make mine owners more careful, and
I am glad to say that the last fatal accident that occurred in Michigan was in November
(1912). The companies are more careful than ever they have been in seeing that the
mines are safe.
An officer of a building trades employers' association in Michigan
said that he did not believe that any of the employers liked the pro-
visions of the old (liability) law, for the reason that it brought no end
of trouble.
Under the compensation act, the conditions which we are to meet are known to all,
and they are very specific in their character. For that reason we know just how to
take care of them in connection with the transaction of our business. While it costs
the employer more money under the terms of the new law, still the workmen, in the
case of injuries sustained, receive more money under the compensation law than they
did under the provisions of the old liability law.
An official of a large company in Massachusetts wrote to the
commission :
We are vitally interested in this sub ject, not only as employers of labor but as private
citizens and are always looking for helpful information from any and every source. We
accepted the workmen's compensation act July 1, 1912, have carefully studied same,
and although we are not prepared at this time to approve all provisions of this law, we
do believe it has created a great improvement in the handling of accident claims, not
only from the employers' but also from the employees' standpoint.
A representative of a large industrial enterprise in New Jersey wrote
to the commission, saying :
When the New Jersey act became effective on July 4, 1911, we had at our command a
record of all accidents occurring in pur works for a period of 13 years, together with the
length of disability of each case, this data having been gathered by our mutual benefit
association in its work. With this information at hand, we were able easily to determine
the amount of compensation we would be obliged to pay under the act in any average
year. The operation of the act in our case has thus far been quite satisfactory. We are
making payments ourselves directly to our employees, and as compared with insurance
against liability and compensation the method is of considerable financial advantage
to us and, we believe, agreeable to our employees.
From a Washington logging company:
Nothing causes more unrest in this United States than this insuring against damage
suits. As it stands now, the injured party is well taken care of. We treat him well,
and he in turn treats us well; we are his friends and he is our friend, and his friends are
also our friends.
REPORT OF COMMISSION. 23
From a member of the accident committee of the National Associa-
tion of Manufacturers:
We came under the general compensation act of the Wisconsin Legislature, almost
immediately after its passage. Experience fully confirmed our entire confidence in
that act; it has led to safety measures that greatly lessen the loss by accidents; it gives
far better protection than any insurance policy that a company would be likely to
purchase or to issue.
From a lumber employer in Washington :
We like the compensation law for the reason that we can now care for our employees
at the time of the accident, when they most need help. Prior to passage, we dared not
help or talk to a man hurt, as any utterance of sympathy or any help would be taken as
the admission of negligence and used against us in lawsuits by ambulance chasing
attorneys.
XI. EFFECT ON ACCIDENT PREVENTION.
It was the general opinion of employers and workmen that the
adoption of compensation acts has resulted in greatly improving
the safeguarding of machinery and industrial processes. Probably
compensation has had an indirect, more than a direct, effect upon the
prevention of accidents, as it has drawn attention to the subject and
aroused the interest of both employers and employees.
A Detroit (Mich.) employer said:
It is also, in pur opinion, a preventive measure of the most advanced type, not
because it requires the employer specifically to undertake measures of safety, but
because the employer will find it highly profitable to install such measures, and in
all ways to use his intelligence both in the physical equipment and policing of his
factory and force so as to reduce accidents to a minimum.
A Wisconsin manufacturer said :
Prior to the passing of the compensation act, our company had given considerable
attention to safety devices, and the plant at this time is quite thoroughly equipped
with such safeguards. Our methods in this respect have been to issue books of rules
to every employee and foreman regarding safety and to have periodically (monthly) an
inspection made of the plant by committees appointed from the employees. These
committees are made up of different men selected prior to such inspection, and in
this way fresh minds and eyes are brought to bear on the possibilities of greater safe-
guarding and additional safety devices. We believe that the compensation act has
undoubtedly resulted in far greater care on the part of the employers and, I am
pleased to state from personal observation, on the part of employees.
A California employer said, in replying to the inquiry as to whether
or not the compensation act had resulted in greater care and safe-
guarding on the part of employers:
I should say that unquestionably such is the case. Of course I can speak authori-
tatively only in so far as our industry is concerned, but I am led to believe that it is
true in practically every line of manufacture throughout the States where workmen's
compensation laws have been passed. I might add in this connection that before the
compensation act was passed in California our company, I believe, made every reason-
able effort to keep their plant guarded against accidents and injuries to their em-
ployees, we at all times trying to keep pur machines equipped with the latest and
most up-to-date devices for the prevention of accidents to our employees; but it is
readily understood, I contend, that legislation such as was passed in California pro-
viding a compulsory compensation to be paid to injured workmen must necessarily
draw the attention of all employers and manufacturers of machines of all kinds to the
possibilities of further guarding and protecting these machines, so as to reduce to a
minimum the possibility of accidents to employees. Since the passing of the com-
pensation act there have been offered to us many suggestions and devices for further
safeguarding our employees. We have in cases where these suggestions and recom-
mendations were found practical complied with them. As to whether or not the
additional precautions taken have tended to reduce accidents in our plant I am hardly
prepared to say yes or no. As a matter of fact, I believe that our statistics will show
24 WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
that since the compensation act went into effect we have had more accidents in our
plant than we had for the corresponding period previous to the passage of the law.
I may say, however, that I believe the severity of the accidents has been considerably
less. Most of the accidents that we have had since the compensation law went into
effect have been very slight, usually caused, I believe, by the carelessness of the
employee in the performance of his duties.
In our opinion these accidents are bound to happen, no matter how carefully these
manufacturing plants are guarded. There is a certain element of risk in connection
with operating a manufacturing business that has nothing to do with the hazard of the
business itself, and it does not seem to me that this risk can ever be entirely eliminated.
It occurs to me. in connection with the above, that it would be appreciated by many
manufacturers throughout the country if it were possible to establish a board or a
bureau of some sort whose sole business it would be to interest themselves in any and
all devices, whether patented or not, having to do with the further safeguarding of
all kinds of machines used in the manufacturing industries of this country. I am
sure that everyone connected with our industry would welcome any suggestions that
would tend to reduce the chances of accidents in their plants.
The president of the Michigan State Federation of Labor said that
the theory of compensation is not alone the paying of money to an
injured employee or to his dependents. It means the prevention of
accidents in the first place. In Michigan during the first year the
compensation act was in effect fatal accidents were reduced from 2
to less than 1 £ per day, and during the last six months of the opera-
tion of the f,ct fatal accidents were reduced to less than 1 per day.
He stated that in Michigan nonf atal accidents had been reduced from
100 per day to less than 65 per day. ,
A member of the Industrial Accident Board of Massachusetts said:
Taking up the matter of accident prevention, let us see what this would mean to
Massachusetts if this 50 per cent of waste could be eliminated. There were 476 deaths
from industrial accidents during the year beginning with July 1, 1912, and ending
on June 30, 1913. During the same period there were 89,694 accidents reported to the
industrial accident board. There were 10,568 accidents which resulted in the laying
up of the worker for a period of from two to four weeks. There were 10,540 accidents
which resulted in the laying up of the worker through total incapacity during a period
of from four weeks to six months. If one-half of these accidents were preventable,
nearly 250 lives might have been saved and the wage-earners in 250 families would
still be at work providing for those dependent upon them, while an army of em-
ployees would have been kept at work all the time instead of being laid up and en-
tirely or partially incapacitated through accidents that were preventable. There
were 186,101 weeks' work lost during that year, and 4,342 persons were constantly
disabled during that entire period.
XH. INSURANCE OF EMPLOYERS DOING BUSINESS IN DIFFERENT
STATES.
The commission received considerable complaint from employers
regarding their difficulty in securing insurance on employees operating
outside of the State. Some of their workmen are at tunes sent out
of the State to install machinery or aid in construction work, while
others, resident of a foreign State, are employed there temporarily.
The Massachusetts Supreme Court (case of American Mutual Lia-
bility Insurance Co., insurer, petitioner; Gould, employee; B. F.
Sturtevant Co., employer) in holding that its law has no effect out-
side of the State and that if employees are to be compensated it
must be under the law of the State in which they are employed, said
that all considerations combined to—
forbid the inference that the legislature having used plain, unmistakable words to
that end, intended our act to govern the rights of the parties as to injuries received
in any other jurisdiction.
REPORT OF COMMISSION. 25
On communicating with the various insurance companies, it was
ascertained that their practice is to insure all of an employer's work-
men when he asks for it, even though they are at work out of the
State, but in as much as they are to be compensated according to the
law of the State hi which they are at work, this necessitates fixing
different rates of premium and, as a result, the policies are written
separately, the employer being required to keep a separate pay roll
covering the employees in each State for the purpose of arriving at
the amount of premium. This proceeding raises some difficulty in
the case of State insurance funds, and also quite frequently in mutual
insurance companies, as both are limited to insuring employees under
the law of a particular State and, therefore, can not issue policies
covering any of the employer's workmen outside of the State. This
is not true of all mutual companies, but applies to those that have
been organized solely for the purpose of insuring under the compen-
sa^ion law of a particular State.
XIII. NONRESIDENT ALIENS.
Some of the States attempt either to deny compensation to non-
resident alien dependents or to qualify and limit the benefits. While
this question was not largely discussed by those whom the commission
met during its investigation, considerable complaint was made by
employers as to the difficulty of preventing imposition in the case of
individuals claiming to be foreign dependents.
It can hardly be regarded as a good condition of this country if
an incentive be given to employ foreigners with nonresident families,
and such incentive would exist only where in case of injuries foreign
families would not be entitled to compensation. It has been said
that it certainly is not going to make for careful operation, if those in
charge of an, undertaking feel that a large part of the fatal injuries to
the workers will not cost the employers anything, since the depend-
ents of the victims live abroad. There is possibly some justification
for basing the amount of benefit to a nonresident beneficiary upon
the cost of living hi his foreign domicile, and there has been a tend-
ency in the various States to reduce the amount instead of denying
all compensation to nonresident aliens. Consequently, an early rule,
adopted in the New Hampshire statute, of excluding nonresidents of
the United States was not followed by the other States. Instead,
California limits nonresidents to one-half of the regular benefits;
Kansas limits them to $750; Minnesota and Michigan give them fall
benefits; Nebraska permits commutation by paying two-thirds; and
New York one-half of the total amounts of future payments; and
Washington excludes all except father and mother, except wh^re
otherwise provided by treaty. Minnesota, Nebraska, and West Vir-
ginia provide that payments for nonresident aliens be made to the
consular representatives of foreign countries.
Among the wage earners the feeling is general that laws should pro-
vide for the payment of compensation to alien dependents of work-
men who have been injured or killed in the course of their employ-
ment. This attitude is based upon two considerations: First, that
justice demands that such dependents should be provided for with-
26 WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
out regard to the place or the country in which they reside; secondly,
that a law which does not provide for alien depen lents places a pre-
mium upon the employment of immigrants.
XIV. EMPLOYMENTS COVERED.
One of the principal purposes of compensation being to eliminate
the technicalities and injustices of the old liability law, it is evident
that an act awarding compensation for an injury in one industry and
not for a similar injury hi another industry not only leads to confu-
sion but breeds a disrespect for the law. It must fall strangely upon
the ears of a widow to say, " You and your children shall not receive
compensation for the death of your husband, although your neighbor,
another widow, and her children receive compensation, the reason
being that your husband's work was not hazardous." In the words
of one of the representatives of the Illinois Steel Co. before the com-
mission at Chicago :
The workman would not be likely to understand why one man should receive
compensation and another should not receive it.
This discrimination exists in the State of Washington, where the
compensation act includes only certain specified hazardous employ-
ments. For instance, teamsters engaged in one kind of employment
are entitled to compensation under the act, no matter how slight the
injury, whereas teamsters in other employments are not so entitled,
notwithstanding the fact that the injury may be serious. This
unsatisfactory result is peculiar to a compensation law which seeks
to classify hazardous occupations, and is in direct contrast with
States in which ah1 employments, except certain specified occupations,
are included.
The practical difficulty of applying an act limited to certain so-
called hazardous occupations was apparent to all who discussed this
feature at the various conferences. It was well stated at Cleveland
by the manager of the accident and pension department of the
American Steel & Wire Co., when, in speaking of the original Illinois
compensation act, which has been amended to cover practically all
employments, he said:
My principal objection to the law in that State is that it attempts to define what
may be hazardous and extra-hazardous occupations. In our Illinois plant we have
accepted the act as a whole; but we do not like to be compelled to consult an attor-
ney frequently to determine what may be called hazardous and extra-hazardous
risks. It is very annoying to be compelled to consult counsel frequently for defini-
tions— narrow definitions, as they may be termed — to determine the particular place
where the law governing such occupations applies.
Other quotations to the same effect might be added; in fact, it was
generally the view of employers that a system of law that imposed a
different liability in different industries for the same kind of an
injury was impractical, confusing, and unjust. And that it also was
expensive, as it necessitated the employer carrying two kinds of
insurance, one to cover compensation cases and another to cover
accidents falling under the liability law. Nowhere did the commis-
sion find workmen asking for such a distinction, as their general
attitude is that all industrial accidents should be covered. (For a
detailed statement of the State laws on this question, see the "Digest
of laws" in Appendix No. 1.)
BEPOBT OP COMMISSION. 27
XV. INJURIES COVERED.
What injuries ought to be covered by a compensation act -is a
question involving considerable difference of opinion. Many em-
ployers contend that they ought not to be required to pay compen-
sation for injuries due to acts of the injured employee in violation of
rules or orders of the employer. The workmen, on the other hands
contend that where the work is so complicated as to require rule,
and orders, the injuries resulting from the violation of such rules
and orders are really a part of the hazard of the business and should
be compensated, as the workman's mind is primarily upon his work
rather than upon his own safety, and that, while to deprive him of
compensation for such injuries may be proper under a liability law
based upon negligence, it has no place in a system of workmen's
compensation in which fault on both sides is ignored. This question
is much like that considered in the determination as to whether the
employee should be permitted to retain the common-law remedies
against the employer for negligence where the latter has violated the
safety statute or a rule promulgated by State officials for the safety
of working men. As appears in Section XVII, employers are gen-
erally opposed to the retention of common-law liability even where
the employer has violated a safety statute or rule, and the trend of
legislation and the attitude of workmen has been favorable to the
acceptance of this position. The recently enacted New York statute
deals with both of these questions in the same way. It grants immu-
nity to the employer from common-law liability for his violation of
safety statutes by making the compensation remedy the exclusive
one and at the same time ignores the employee's violation of a rule
or order of the employer by granting him compensation for in juries
except where the injury is occasioned —
by the willful intention of the injured employee to bring about the injury or death
of himself or of another, or where the injury results solely from the intoxication of
the injured employee while on duty.
As will be seen from a digest of the laws (Appendix No. 1), a few
of the States still retain the language of the English statute, which
deprives employees of compensation where the injury was caused by
"serious and willful misconduct" on their part, or this in substance.
The industrial accident boards have given this language a narrow
construction, and its full scope is yet to be determined by the courts.
In considering the effect of this clause it must be borne in mind that
the English statute, having been given a broad construction, and
compensation, as a result, denied to many workmen for injuries
resulting from the violation of orders and rules, was subsequently
amended so as to prevent the application of the words " serious and
willful misconduct" where the accident resulted in serious and per-
manent disablement.
INJURIES ARISING OUT OP AND IN THE COURSE OF EMPLOYMENT.
Another clause, limiting the right to compensation for injuries
"arising out of and in the course of employment," which appears in
most of the American statutes, has been the source of a great deal
of litigation in Great Britain and has been the basis of a considerable
28 WORKMEN 's COMPENSATION.
proportion of the questions that have been arbitrated before the
American commissions. Among those which have arisen under this
clause in Great Britain and the United States are, whether employees
are entitled to compensation for injuries in going to and from places
of employment, for injuries at mealtime, doing forbidden acts, obey-
ing unauthorized orders, acts in emergency, saving life or property,
practical joking and playing, assault and battery by fellow workmen,
malicious injuries, acts of God, injuries to commercial travelers and
collectors, while receiving pay, and going after tools. Other cases
might be named, but these are illustrative of the questions that arise
under this provision.
So far neither of the above exceptions to the right to compensa-
tion have caused much litigation or controversy in the various States.
WHAT ARE ACCIDENTAL INJURIES.
The question also arises as to whether the nature of the particular
injury is such as to entitle the workman to compensation. This
brings up such questions as occupational diseases, defective medical
treatment, sunstroke, frostbites, nernia, sprains, overexertion, heart
disease, pneumonia, mental shock or fright, insanity, aggravation of
preexisting disease, gas poisoning, blood poisoning, and eiysipelas.
Most of the statutes limit the right to compensation to personal inju-
ries "by accident." Massachusetts and Michigan do not use the
words "by accident," but the statutes of these States read " personal
injuries arising out of" the employment, and consequently an effort
has been made in these States to reach certain occupational diseases
arising under circumstances that might not be called "by accident,"
and yet alleged to arise out of and in the course of employment.
In Michigan the board has given compensation for occupational
disease. (Case of Adams v. Acme White Lead & Color Works;
opinion by Industrial Accident Board of Michigan, under date of Oct.
28, 1913.)
A member of the Industrial Accident Board of Massachusetts said:
Turning for a moment to the subject of occupational diseases, dusty trades, indus-
trial poisons, and occupational diseases are responsible for an annual loss in the United
States of $750,000,000 through needless diseases and disablement, and Massachusetts
has its proportion of this enormous waste. The great majority of wage earners spend
at least one-third of every 24 hours in the factory, mill, or shop. Conditions in u.any
of them are such that the worker is unable to attain fullest efficiency by reason of
the conditions which surround him, and this has a direct bearing upon the number
of accidents or the quantity of the output per worker. All this imposes an additional
burden on the taxpayer and increased expenditures in our cities and towns, in the
departments of health, charity, education, and police. It has a direct bearing upon
the cost of production, and it vitally affects the pocketbook nerve of the employer
through high insurance-premium rates under the workmen's compensation act, through
a diminished output and a lack of efficiency, due to insanitary conditions, over-
crowded and ill-planned workshops, and a lowering of the vitality of the workers, so
that they are incapable of producing the best results, thus limiting the output and
increasing its cost.
The Commonwealth has, through its general court, passed legislation that will
bring these conditions to an end. In order to do so effectively and without the employ-
ment of harsh methods, Massachusetts depends upon the hearty and loyal cooperation
of both employers and employees.
This commission found a general feeling among workmen in favor
of the granting of compensation for well-defined occupational diseases.
BEPOKT OF COMMISSION. 29
XVI. CONTRACTORS' LIABILITY TO EMPLOYEES OF SUBCON-
TRACTORS.
In those States in which contractors are not liable by statute to
pay compensation to employees of subcontractors a good deal of
confusion arises, as quite frequently an employee does not know that
he is not working for the principal contractor. He sees notices
posted showing the principal employer to be under the compensation
act, but when injured he receives nothing, owing to the fact that he
is working for a subcontractor. This difference, if permitted to con-
tinue, may lead to a subletting of the dangerous parts of any work.
The justice of making the principal contractor liable to all work-
men was generally admitted; in fact, their attitude on this question
is another indication of the broad way in which employers are meet-
ing the spirit of compensation laws. An official of the builders' ex-
change in one of the States visited took the position that men might
refuse to work for a subcontractor who had not accepted the com-
pensation act, and that the labor unions should insist upon the ac-
ceptance of th& act by subcontractors. Some employers have written
us that they always require a subcontractor to come under the law.
One contractor wrote that in accepting bids he takes the man who has
accepted the compensation act, even though his bid was higher. In
Massachusetts an electrical contractor stated: "I was obliged to
accept (the act) by general contractors insisting upon it before plac-
ing contracts with us." The result has been that the trend of legis-
lation is toward making the contractor liable for compensation to the
employees of subcontractors where the latter have not accepted the
compensation act.
California, Connecticut, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts, and
Nevada have legislated upon this subject and have made the prin-
cipal contractor liable to the employees of subcontractors. Minne-
sota and Nebraska have not gone so far, but limit their statutes to
provisions preventing fraudulent schemes to avoid liability by letting
out work on contract.
Evidence was offered the commission that such provisions were
necessary. A representative of the Structural Iron Workers' Asso-
ciation in Michigan said :
I know where a large number of men have sustained injuries in connection with their
work in this State, and after receiving such injuries were very much disappointed
in discovering they had been working for a subcontractor instead of the principal.
They have a very good compensation law in the State of Ohio. I believe if the State
of Michigan had a law similar thereto it would give more satisfaction. There is a great
dissatisfaction with the law as it exists in this State. We find that many of our contrac-
tors evade the law in this respect. Unless the law is compulsory as far as requiring
the employers to come under its provisions, I do not think it is of much advantage
to the workmen. It is true, as has been stated here, that many men employed in
shops and elsewhere are not familiar with the provisions of the law. I think a copy of
the law should be posted where men are employed, so that every employee may be-
come familiar with the requirements of the law. I think this feature of the law
should be carefully considered and the men employed under a subcontractor should
be protected.
A representative of the hoisting engineers said :
In speaking for the hoisting engineers in their dealings with subcontractors I will
say that 75 per cent of our men work under subcontractors and are therefore not pro-
tected by the compensation law. Our organization would recommend that the law
be amended whereby the general contractor be made responsible for accidents that
may happen under the subcontractor.
30 WORKMEN 'S COMPENSATION.
The president of a building trade employers' association thus gave
bis views:
We have been trying to educate our contractors with reference to the advisability
and benefit of coming under the law. Would it not be for the advantage of the work-
man, for instance, to see that the man for whom he is working is under the provisions
of the compensation act? He should see that he would be properly protected before
he enters the employ of any contractor. I believe that the principal contractor
and the workman have a common interest whereby they should see that the sub-
contractors come under the act. I think the interests of the contractor and the em-
§loyee are identical. The principal employer who is under the provisions of the act
emonstrates by so doing that he is anxious that the men working for him should be
amply protected, and therefore he avails himself of the benefit of the act, not for him-
self alone,, but also for the benefit and welfare of the workman and his family. It
may be that the subcontractor may avail himself of not coming under the law be-
cause of the fact he will save the money required in connection with the necessity of
availing himself of the expense incurred by going under the act. For instance, in
bidding on a piece of work in competition with a man who is under the provisions
of the act he may say that he can bid cheaper or lower than the other man who ia
under the act, because he is not obliged to pay the expense of being under the act.
I can not understand why a workman should not interest himself sufficiently to see
before he enters on his work that the man or firm by whom he is employed is under
the workmen's compensation act. I think it is to his own interest to acquaint himself
on this point.
XVII. EXCLTTSIVENESS OP REMEDY.
When workmen's compensation acts were first written in this
country, they retained the old system of employers' liability and added
the new scheme of workmen's compensation, so that, after an acci-
dent, an employee could take his choice of accepting the compensa-
tion or suing the employer under the employers' liability law. Of
course, in those cases in which there was no liability, the employee
would naturally accept the compensation, while in cases where he
felt that negligence had occurred he would pursue his remedy under
the liability law.
The commission found that one of the prime considerations that
induced employers to accept compensation acts was a desire to get
away from the old system of litigation, waste, and uncertainty, and
they objected for this reason to any retention of the old system. One
of the early statutes was that of New Hampshire, which gave the
employee his option after an accident as to which remedy he would
pursue. This act has been accepted by only 21 employers in that
State. One large employer from New Hampshire wrote:
We believe that the fact that an employee in New Hampshire has a right to elect
after an accident whether he will accept compensation or pursue his common-law right
of action is an exceedingly great detriment and deprives the act of much of its intended
value. We take it that one object of a workmen's compensation act is to render definite
and easily ascertainable the amount to which an injured employee is entitled, thereby
settling the matter in his mind and in the mind of his employer and rendering unneces-
sary prolonged controversy or litigation. In as many cases as heretofore, the matter
resolves itself into the same drawn-out and troublesome controversy that under the
common law is followed upon the occurrence of accidents in mills and factories.
Another large manufacturer in New Hampshire wrote the commis-
sion:
In reference to our experience with the employers' liability and workmen's com-
pensation law, I would say that this company has not as yet decided to accept this law
as it at present stands. The objection that we find is the section that gives
the employee the privilege to elect after an accident whether he will accept compensa-
tion or pursue the common-law rights. * * * As you get replies from other manu-
facturers throughout the State, we believe you will find a great many who have taken
the same view of the law, which indicates that with this one change the law would
prove to be workable.
BEPOBT OF COMMISSION. 31
Letters of the same import were received from other employers in
New Hampshire who had refused to accept the act.
The commission found that employers, in discussing this question,
generally made the argument that compensation acts are based upon
the theory that the industry should be charged with the cost of
industrial accidents, regardless of fault, and that if negligence of the
injured workman is to be ignored and he is to recover compensation
regardless of his acts, then likewise the employer's negligence, which
in modern industry is generally the negligence of his servants and
agents, should also be ignored.
The commission found that as employees became accustomed to
the workings of compensation acts and realized that they were real
and substantial and that payments were made promptly, they lost
interest in the question of employers' liability laws; they generally
expressed themselves as satisfied with a good compensation act and
did not care for the option to sue under the liability law. While
this was not always the case, it is rapidly becoming tne dominating
thought. In fact, the evolution of this legislation tends toward
making the compensation act an exclusive remedy. While the early
acts gave the employee an option after an accident as to which remedy
he would pursue, the later statutes took this option away from him
except in special cases. In these they require that he shall elect
before the accident whether he will accept the compensation act, and,
having accepted it, he is to be deprived of any other remedy except
under certain specified circumstances. The latest New YorK statute
not only pays a more liberal compensation than any other act so far
adopted but makes workmen's compensation the exclusive remedy.
XVIII. MEDICAL AND SURGICAL AID.
Prior to the enactment of workmen's compensation laws, employers
were not required to pay for the medical services furnished to in-
jured employees except as included by the jury in fixing the dam-
ages in the small number of cases in which the employees recovered
damages. Consequently, not only were employees often neglected
at the time that they needed medical services but their physicians
received remuneration only as the employee was able to pay.
Under all the compensation acts, except those of Washington and
New Hampshire, employers are required to furnish medical service,
although in Arizona, Kansas, Maryland, and Nevada pay for medical
services is required only to cover the last illness in death cases.
In some States the statute limits the services as to amount and in
others as to length of time. That the employee is entitled to this
allowance is generally conceded, and in many cases the employers
and insurance companies are paying a larger amount than that fixed
by the statute. As a rule, this additional expenditure is made for
the purpose of facilitating the recovery of the workman so as to re-
duce the amount payable as compensation.
The cost of medical services, being larger than was anticipated
when the statutes were first enacted, it has become an important
item of expenditure.
According to the last report of the Employers' Mutual Liability
Insurance Co. of Wisconsin, it has paid out and become liable to pay
for medical services about 50 per cent of the amount that it has paid
32 WOKKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
to injured employees. The Industrial Commission of Wisconsin
also states in its second annual report that—
the cost of medical attendance, including hospital and nurse hire, lias averaged about
50 per cent of the indemnity that has been paid to injured employees. On a basis
of 50 per cent of the indemnity for medical attendance, there has been paid out during
the year ending July 1, 1913, for medical, surgif al, and hospital treatment $79,594.46,
covering about 45 per cent of the industrial accidents c-f that State which come under
workmen's compensation.
From this it would appear that for each dollar paid to an injured
workman in compensation an additional 50 cents is paid to the doctor
for medical attendance.
According to statements made to us by different insurance com-
panies, the amount paid by them for medical services as compared
with the amount paid for compensation varies greatly, though the
experience in some States has not been large enough to give a true
average. For Massachusetts, one company reports that on a wide
experience the amount for medical expense is 43.8 per cent of the
amount paid to workmen; another company gives 29 per cent and
still another 40 per cent. Naturally, in a State paying a high rate
of compensation, the proportion for medical attendance will be less,
and likewise in a State haying a one- week waiting period.
In considering the medical cost and the variations between the
different percentages here given, it must be borne in mind that it
is possible that in some of the reports given this commission there
have not been fully considered the amounts to be paid as compen-
sation in the future for accidents extending beyond the year covered.
If this be true, the proportion of medical cost during the first year
may be greater than it will be in succeeding years.
A large insurance company which reported to this commission
a lower cost of medical service than that contained in other reports
specifically stated that its figures were made —
upon the basis of the amounts paid, plus the amounts which are going to be paid as the
result of accidents. The amounts have not been simply those which we have paid
out for medical attention and for compensation to workmen, as this would lose sight
of the amounts still to be paid, both for medical attention and compensation to work-
men on accidents already reported.
This company reported to the commission that the amount paid
for medical services in Massachusetts was 29 per cent, Illinois 28, and
New Jersey 20, and in discussing the question further said :
Although Massachusetts shows a percentage slightly larger than the figures of Illi-
nois, the figures do not show that the medical expenses have been greater in Massa-
chusetts— they are simply greater in relation to the scale of compensation paid to the
workmen. Our experience under the other compensation acts has not developed
sufficiently to date to warrant our issuing conclusive figure?. \Ve believe, however,
that the above percentages are upon a reliable basis, and we trust that they will be 01
service to you. "We might add that our experience has shown that medical cost has
increased more rapidly than compensation cost during the operation of an act. Your
attention is called to the fact that the various compensation laws provide a high limit
for medical attention, also a considerable period of time. Again, the medical atten-
tion covers a much larger number of cases than does the compensation, owing to the
exclusion of one or two weeks. These conditions produce the large amount paid for
doctors' services. The average cost per case in Illinois is $5.90, Massachusetts $5.30,
and New Jersey $2.79. The New Jersey amount is low owing to the fact that this cost
was low at the commencement of writing compensation insurance. The cost at this
time is nearly as high as that of Massachusetts and Illinois. The manager of the claim
department ,* * * tells me that he has no reason to believe that "the doctors are
making excessive charges * * *. This company has never favored the doctors'
REPORT OF COMMISSION. 33
contract whereby a company furnishes a doctor for every district. We have uniformly
permitted the employer or the injured employee to select his own doctor, and find
that has proven the most satisfactory way to handle the matter.
Another insurance company writes that it has paid out in Massa-
chusetts $9,662.19 for compensation and $3,930.59 for medical
services, a ratio of medical services to compensation of 40.6 per cent.
The same company has paid out in Illinois $33,568.24 for Compensa-
tion and $13,569.84 for medical services, the ratio being 40.4. The
large percentage of cost of medical services is in part accounted for by
the fact that as many of the disabilities do not last longer than two
weeks the workmen are not entitled to compensation, while all of the
injured are entitled to a doctor's bill.
The experience of a shoe manufacturing concern in Boston illus-
trates this phase of compensation. Of 11 accidents occurring in a
plant of this company prior to July 31, 1913, only 2 required the
payment of compensation, while all involved a medical mil. For
these 11 accidents the total amount of compensation was $28.93,
while the total for medical services was $84.50. The experience of
this shoe company, while illustrating the large number of accidents in
some industries which require medical expense but do not involve
compensation, also is suggestive of the extent to which the amount of
compensation would be increased if it were not for the requirements
of the law which compel the employer to furnish efficient medical
attention. Out of these 11 cases a large portion involved blood
poisoning, and if they had not been given proper medical attention
at least some of the number would have suffered serious losses.
The reports of the insurance companies to the Massachusetts Indus-
trial Accident Board show that out of the 41,256 accidents for .the
year ending June 30, 1913, 26,609 required. medical services without
compensation; 10,827 entailed both medical services and compensa-
tion, and the remaining 3,820 compensation without cost for medical
services.
However, an impression prevails that costs of medical services are
excessively high and that physicians, knowing that bills are to be
paid either by employers or insurance companies, charge rates higher
than they would if their services were to be paid for by the employees
for whose benefit they are rendered.
In Michigan the industrial accident board instituted an inquiry
involving six industries and 19,295 employees and covering 3,757
accidents, and from this it would appear that the amount of money
paid for medical and hospital attention was $8,032.03, and the amount
paid to the employees and their families for compensation was
$15,588.55.
The subject is a delicate one, and the commission found what it
considered a tendency on the part of both employers and insurance
companies to avoid antagonizing the members of the medical pro-
fession, whose expert knowledge is frequently a controlling factor in
determining the extent of personal injuries. The medical profession
has its professional standards which it desires to maintain and with
which parties concerned are loath to interfere. There is generally an
objection in the profession to working upon a salary or under a
contract system, while many employers feel that by some such system
the cost of medical attention could be reduced. There is a strong
tendency to respect the physician and his standards.
30003— S. Doc. 419, G3-2 3
34 WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
An insurance representative in one of the Western States said to
the commission:
The old-established hospitals have not made any increase in their rates, but there
have been a number of industrial hospitals, so called, which are private enterprises
conducted solely for the purpose of taking care of cases of this kind, which have
charged fees that are higher than the fees charged by the older established hospitals,
and if they" have not done that they have charged the same fees and given service
that was not as good. We have made it a rule that wherever we find such a hospital
we will do all that we can to prevent a man from going to it. We find that, with the
doctors, there are certain ones who overcharge. We make it a rule that we will recom-
mend to each risk one or two doctors to whom they may send their men. We usually
let them pick the doctors. We do not make any rule requiring the men to go to a
particular doctor. We simply recommend doctors who agree to a fair schedule of fees.
If a man has a doctor who happens to be a family doctor, we pay the bill unless it is
excessive. If it is excessive, we submit it to the industrial accident board which
has the power to rule on the reasonableness of the medical charge. The board has
requested that we do so.
Others who appeared before the commission suggested that it
would be a good move to have a provision in the law requiring that
doctors' bills be referred to the State industrial board for considera-
tion.
The Industrial Accident Board of Massachusetts, realizing the
seriousness of the situation, held a conference in March, 1913, with the
representatives of the medical societies of the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts, which resulted in the appointment of an advisory
committee and the adoption by that committee of certain recom-
mendations referred to in Appendix No. 5. Under the law of Mas-
sachusetts the employer or the insurance company has the right to
select a physician, otherwise neither is required to pay for the services,
but through the cooperation of the industrial accident board there
has been a working agreement with the insurance companies whereby
the employee may select his own physician.
At the conference the chairman of the Massachusetts board, in
presenting the matter to the physicians present, in the course of his
remarks, said:
If I understand the law correctly in these matters, > ou have no right whatever to
charge, simply because there is an insurance company in the case, any more than you
would charge the injured man if he came to your office for your personal treatment and
assistance. Remember that; because the continuance of this working agreement
depends, as I have said, entirely upon you. This is all a question of cost. The insur-
ance companies at first objected strenuously to this agreement. The\ said they could
not do business if they could not select their own doctors, but the industrial accident
board asked them to try it out, and so far it is working satisfactorily. * * * Some
bills that have been refused payment by insurance companies have been fair, but
others are exactly the contrary. When a young doctor, living and seeking practice
in the neighborhood of the working poor, asks $5 a visit, sometimes making two visits
a da> , the answer is obvious. When doctors visit patients with a crush of the nerve
of the thumb, or a lacerated wound, and claim they make three visits a day because
of the necessity of administering opiates, what is the answer? These, however, are
only the common everyday troubles with the medical features of the workmen's
compensation act. Workmen's compensation laws which aim to compensate injured
employees have a more far-reaching object in view, and that is the prevention of
industrial accidents. The board is anxious that the medical profession should be
properly compensated and not be deprived of any professional privileges, and espe-
cially that this great movement may be put on a firm and just foundation, and for
these purposes calls this meeting and seeks your cooperation. The physicians of
Massachusetts will receive at least five times as much in fees from the industrial
accident board through the insurance companies as was received by them under the
employers' liability act. The insurance association and the Government, if far-
sighted, will not content themselves simply with the cure of the ills that are found to
exist, but will aim at preventing them and getting the injured person back to work.
KEPOET OF COMMISSION. 35
If the insurance company has not a voice, or only a minor voice, in the selection of
medical treatment, will its opportunity and endeavor in the direction of prevention
be seriously hampered?
The conference was attended by the leading physicians of the
State, at which one of the physicians said:
It seems to me unfortunate that a law as good as this could not be carried on with
cooperation, and that the medical profession should not be in a position to do its best
most generously. In essence, we come here to-day to offer to give the board a com-
mittee to cooperate with it. The Massachusetts Medical Society and the Homeopathic
Society stand ready to help. * * * I think the feeling of the profession, right or
wrong, is that regarding the question of choice of a physician, the danger is on the
side of the injured man — that he may get inefficient care. The injured man is going
to make a great many mistakes, and not always get the best, but he will not knowingly
seek cheap or unskilled aid.
Something of the enormous amount of hospital work performed
by physicians and surgeons, a great deal charity work, was referred
to by one of the physicians, who stated that:
There are upward of 80 hospitals and dispensaries in Boston for the treatment of the
sick and injured. More than 300,000 persons receive treatment annually in these
institutions. It has been estimated that at the prevailing rates for such services in
private practice the labor rendered to these people every year bj the medical p/q-
fession would amount to between $8,000,000 and $10,000,000. The medical profession
naturally feels that this charity work is overdone; that a certain proportion of these
charity patients are well able to pay the doctor for his services; and that in view of the
enormous amount of work necessary for the proper care of the worth} poor, they should
not be required to serve those able to pay for treatment, including the members of
insurance companies or other benefit associations, without compensation.
Another physician said:
I believe that the insurance companies are imposed upon in many instances, but
there are honest men in the medical profession. All we want is fair remuneration;
precisely what we would charge that individual if he were paying the bill himself.
We are perfectly satisfied with that.
Another physician presented another phase of the situation:
There seems to be a great stress laid upon the percentage paid the doctors. The
board seems to think that the new law pays the doctors a great amount. Now, if we
were paying compensation to well people, we could easily understand why that criti-
cism would be just, but we are paying compensation to a man more in need of medical
service than he is of bread. If a man has a septic hand, it may be a question of life
or death; if a man has a broken leg, it is a question perhaps of his future earnings.
This is a social law that is going to do justice to the worker. It is going to place the
whole cost of accidents in the right place. Any ruling that is going to lessen our
earnings is not going to fulfill that theory.
The argument presented at the conference that the employees
would get better service by having the privilege of selecting a phy-
sician was not always approved by employers whom this commission
met at their various conferences. It was quite generallv stated
that the employee, except where he had a regular family physician,
was indifferent as to the physician who should attend Him, quite
frequently was unacquainted with the physicians in the community
and generallv at the time of his accident was in no condition to give
it consideration. That, on the other hand, the employer, if given
the right to make the selection, would not select a cheap or ineffi-
cient physician, but would be interested from a financial point of
view in getting good medical aid, knowing that the amount of com-
pensation that he must pay the injured one would be increased if
recovery was delayed or the extent of the injuries enhanced by poor
36 WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
treatment. However, employers did recognize the considerations
in favor of permitting the employee to select his physician whenever
he cared to exercise a choice, and it is generally the practice even in
the States that permit the employer or the insurance company to
select the physician to recognize and adopt the wishes of the em-
ployee whenever he gives expression to them. The arguments
offered by employers against being compelled to pay the bills of the
physician selected by the injured person are that the physician,
having no relation with the person who must pay the bill, would be
more likely to be indifferent as to whether his charges were fair; and
that the employee who selected him, not being called upon to pay
tne bill himself, would be at least indifferent, if not willing that
the physician should either overcharge or make unnecessary visits.
In an effort to meet the situation, a group of manufacturers of
Detroit have organized what is known as the Manufacturers' Mutual
Hospital Association, the purpose and plan of which was described
to tnis commission by one of its officers as follows:
"With the passage by the State of Michigan of an employers' liability and work-
men's compensation law, which became effective September 1, 1912, there imme-
diately arose the necessity for more adequate hospital facilities for the care of injured
workmen. Not that industrial accidents would increase through the passage of this
act, but because the responsibility of medical and surgical care for the injured was
placed directly upon the shoulders of the employer for the first three weeks following
the accident.
Through the passage of this law, insurance rates immediately became much higher
than heretofore, and a large number of empolyers decided it to be to their best inter-
ests to carry their own insurance. .
Realizing the shortsightedness of providing medical aid for an injured workman
for but three weeks, and then turning him loose to shift for himself, thereby inviting
additional treatment '' for the Man of sundry and various' sorts, all tending toward
the lengthening out of a compensation period, thereby entailing additional cost, a
number of Detroit manufacturers got together, and the Manufacturers' Mutual Hos-
pital Association was formed.
A building at 484 Jefferson Avenue was secured, being fairly centrally located to
the manufacturers along the river front, who were the originators of the project, and
it has been completely equipped as a hospital. The building contains 27 rooms, 6
baths, is steam heated, electrically lighted, has large grounds, and with front and
rear entrances. The wards are large, light, and well ventilated, and the private
rooms are exceptionally line, due to the fact that the building was at one time the
home of one of Detroit s most representative men.
The staff consists of men of recognized ability, graduates of Yale, Cornell, and
Johns Hopkins Universities, to which has been added considerable hospital experi-
ence. This immediately insures service of the highest quality.
The hospital association is organized on a mutual plan, the members being assessed
on the number of their employees. Assessments are based on actual expenses, and
rebates will be made should more funds be collected than absolutely necessary.
The method of handling the injured is as follows:
An accident occurs in the establishment of a member, the injured party is imme-
diately taken to the hospital, where proper aid is rendered. If the injury be of a
serious nature, he is immediately assigned to a ward or room, and is then taken care
of •until he has entirely recovered and is able to report back to work.
Should the injury be of a minor nature, not necessitating a stay at the hospital,
he is sent to his home, provided that conditions at his home in the way of sanitation,
etc., are favorable to his condition. If not, he is kept at the hospital.
These cases sent to their homes are instructed to return daily to the hospital for
treatment, but if they are unable to do this a physician will call as often as necessary,
and treat them at their homes until they are either able to report at the hospitals for
further treatment or to return to work.
In addition to the staff of physicians, both in and outside, an inspector is employed,
whose duty it is to keep track of all cases that are being treated at home or that come
to the hospital, follow them up in change of address, bring them to the hospital if
they do not report as instructed, make reports through the hospital to the employer,
and in every way safeguard the employer's interests, so that the men receive the
REPORT OF COMMISSION. 37
very best medical and surgical care and are returned to work within the least possi-
ble time.
A complete record of cases is kept at the hospital, such as history sheets, treatment
and call records, full data regarding the nature of the accidents, and in fact every-
thing pertaining to each and every case. Should a difference arise between the
employee and employer, making arbitration necessary, this detail information is
immediately available.
This hospital plan is only a part of the general campaign of education by which we
are endeavoring to teach the workmen that their interests are identical with those of
the employer: that the employer is making every effort to work for their betterment
in various ways, such as proper safeguarding of all machinery and dangerous place*,
giving them light, well ventilated, sanitary places to work, paying the highest pos-
sible wages, and taking care of them when injured, realizing fully that such a course
tends toward increased loyalty on the part of the workman, bringing about a closer
cooperation and gradually decreasing the width of the chasm which has long existed
between capital and labor.
XIX. WAITING PERIOD.
All of the States except Washington and Oregon prescribe a waiting
period beyond which disability must extend before compensation
begins. The waiting period is one week in Texas, West Viriginia.
Wisconsin, and Ohio, and two weeks in Rhode Island, Nevada, New
Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Kansas, Massachusetts, Michi-
gan, Minnesota, Nebraska. Arizona, California, Connecticut, and
Iowa. In Nevada, where the period was originally 10 days, it was
made two weeks by amending the statute, and in the new California
act in effect January 1. 1914, it has been made two weeks, where it
had been one week before.
The commission found differences of opinion as to what consti-
tutes a proper waiting period. Employees engaged in a lino of work
in which most of the accidents arc slight look upon the wating period
as unfair, while employees engaged in hazardous work, where acci-
dents, if any, are of a serious nature, take but little interest in the
length of the waiting period, except to ask that in case the disability
extends beyond a certain term the right to compensation shall begin
at the time of the accident, as has been done in several of the States.
The statute of Wisconsin provides that where the disability lasts for
more than four weeks the compensation relates back to the date of
the accident. In Michigan and Nebraska the same rule prevails
except that the disability must last for eight week* before the right
to compensation from the date of injury exists. The Illinois statute
provides chat in case the incapacity is permanent the right fco com-
pensation begins on the day after the injury. Many employers
stated to this commission that the waiting period should be" no
longer than one week, but these were usually engaged in lines of
work not involving serious accidents; in fact, in these employments,
as one employer put it, "If we did not pay for small accidents, there
would be no accidents for us to pay for." It quite frequently hap-
pens that this class of employers, without being required by law to
do so, pay employees injured from the time of the accident and
ignore the waiting period.
As a rule, workmen, even in the less hazardous industries, stated
that they would rather have the compensation increased for the
serious accidents than to have the waiting period reduced below two
weeks; and that a man could better stand an occasional loss from
inability to work during a short period if he were assured that he
would receive adequate compensation for all serious injuries.
38 WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
Some idea of the proportion of accidents which would be brought
under the compensation act by reducing the waiting period from two
weeks to one is shown by the statistics of the board of awards in
Ohio, where the waiting period is one week. Out of 5,115 cases
entitled to compensation, 1,128 were disabled more than one week
and less than two. From the statistics of the Industrial Insurance
Commission of Washington it appears that out of 12,380 accidents
occurring in that State during the year ending October 1, 1913, 1,681
involved a disability of less than one week, and 3,157 covered a dis-
ability of more than one week and less than two weeks, so that more
than a third of the accidents in the State, for which employees were
paid, involved a disability of less than two weeks. In Massachusetts
out of approximately 71,000 accidents occurring in the first year about
67,718 involved a disability of less than two weeks. These figures
can not be compared, of course, with the figures given above in the
other States for the reason that the number here given as incurring
a disability of less than two weeks includes those workmen who were
injured but not prevented from working as a result of their injuries,
while in the States given above there was an actual loss of time. In
California, out gf 6,150 accidents coming within the jurisdiction of the
industrial accident board, 2,409 involved a disability of more than one
week and less than two weeks.
Some workmen are more or less influenced in their attitude toward
the length of the waiting period by the nature of the injuries common
in their respective occupations. Others have formed a judgment on
experience with the act in their State. In Washington, where there
is no waiting period, one of the commissioners stated to this com-
mission that it would be better if there were a waiting period of two
weeks, provided medical expenses were paid for by the employers
and increased compensation given the workmen in the serious cases.
The compensation in Washington averages about 40 per cent of the
wages. Aside from the question of fraud, which may occur with no
waiting period, is the expense connected with handling the small
accidents, which is as large as the amount of money involved, if not
larger.
A trade union representative in Massachusetts was of this opinion:
The waiting time should be reduced to 10 or 7 days. Compensation should begin
with date of accident when the injured person is entitled to any compensation; that is
to say, when the injury extends beyond the waiting period compensation should be
paid from the date of the accident.
From a representative of a Michigan trade union:
Speaking for the beer bottlers, I will say that they are not very much benefited by
the compensation act. For instance, one of our workers is injured by the explosion
of a bottle. Pie is unable to handle the bottles by reason of a cut on his hand and
he is not so severely injured that he requires the services of a physician. He is laid
off for about two weeks and receives no compensation. I believe some steps should
be taken whereby the waiting period be reduced to one week instead of two. In
some cases the waiting period should date from the time the manreceived the injury.1
A representative of the Employers' Association of Ohio said:
The employers are of the unanimous opinion that there should be a waiting period
and that a reasonable time should be fixed to determine whether or not an injured
employee is feigning injury. *
1 Simple safeguards, at small expense to the employer, would practically eliminate such accidents.
REPORT OF COMMISSION. 39
From a representative of a Michigan insurance company:
I think the 14-day waiting period is all right, especially if you take into considera-
tion the fact that the injured person will receive compensation for the first 14 days,
provided the period of disability extends beyond eight weeks.
A Massachusetts employer said:
I think the time for compensation should begin after the first week and not the
second, as this is a hardship on many employees.
XX. AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION.
The amount of compensation varies in the different States from 50
to 66 § per cent of the wages of the injured employee, with besides
stated allowances for amputations and certain other specified in-
juries. While the employers in States paying but 50 per cent of the
workman's wages regard their assessment as fair and are fearful of
the consequences of increasing it, this commission has not heard much
criticism from employers in States in which a higher rate of compensa-
tion is paid. In fact, in the latter States there does not seem to be
any more complaint about the cost than in States paying but 50 per
cent. A representative of the Employers' Association of Cleveland,
in response to an inquiry as to how the employers regarded the pay-
ment of 66§ per cent of wages for compensation, said:
In the first place, there was considerable opposition to that feature; but at the
present time I think our members are satisfied with that provision of the law. They
have become educated more and more since the law has been in force. The more
enlightened our members have become on that subject the better pleased they are
with it.
The principal points raised by employers with regard to cost were
to have the amount of compensation definite and certain, to have
uniformity in the different States, and to have the statutes so drawn
as to avoid uncertainties and litigation with its consequent waste.
This was well expressed to the commission by a representative of the
Illinois Steel Co. when he said:
I will say that I have so much faith in compensation acts that I do not think it
makes much difference how long the payments run, or what the amount of the pay-
ments may be, because the payments are distributed over the whole industrial com-
munity, and I might say over the whole Nation, in the long run. * * * There
should be a uniformity as to the amounts paid in the different States.
The commission found no demand on the part of employers in the
States ^ paying a rate of compensation higher than 50 per cent for
reduction or other change of the amount under their specific law.
The States paying more than 50 per cent for compensation are: Cali-
fornia, 65; Nevada, 60; Ohio, 66§; Texas, 60; Wisconsin, 65; and
New York, 66§ ; while in all the other States, except Washington, the
compensation is on a 50 per cent basis. In Washington, where the
compensation is a specific monthly sum, the statistics of its industrial
insurance commission show that the payments under the law average
about 40 per cent of the employees' wages, which is the lowest rate
of compensation.
The commission found a growing demand in the different States in
favor of so extending the compensation period in cases of total perma-
nent disability as to cover the lifetime of the unfortunate victim.
This demand has been recognized in the statutes of several of the
States. That employers and workmen are commencing to realize
40 WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
that injuries of this kind, and in fact all serious injuries (rather than
the minor ones), are those most requiring compensation manifested
itself in the recent change in the policy of California. In its new com-
pulsory act that State changed its waiting period from one week,
under the old statute, to two weeks, and the compensation in cases of
total permanent disability was extended through life. It is estimated
by the California officials that this change will not add to the burden
of the employer, the amount saved by changing the waiting period
from one week to two covering the increased cost of the life provision
in total permanent disability cases. This was agreed to by the work-
men in that State, who felt that they could better stand the temporary
injuries of two weeks' duration than those incapacitating them for
life.
In considering the amount of compensation payable under a statute,
the percentage of wages is but one element. Most statutes prescribe
a maximum weekly amount, which varies in different States. Of
course, under high wages, increasing the maximum will increase the
total amount of compensation more than it will under low- wage rates.
In Massachusetts an increase in the maximum, which is now $10 a
week, would have affected only about 7 per cent of the employees
injured during the year ending June 30, 1913, as only that percentage
of those injured during that period were receiving mow. than $20 per
week. In some States payment is limited to a certain definite number
of years even in case of widowhood or for permanent total disability,
while hi others compensation is paid during the entire period of
incapacitation.
Efforts are being made in some of the States to work out a schedule
of compensation along scientific lines, so as to take into consideration
the age of the employee, the effect of the injury upon his particular
trade or occupation, and other varying conditions. The latest Wis-
consin statute provides that in the case of permanent injury to an
employee who is over 55 years of age, compensation shall be reduced
by 5 per cent; in case he is over 60 years of age, the compensation
shall be reduced by 10 per cent; and in case he is over 65 years of
age, by 15 per cent. The recent New York statute provides that—
If it be established that the injured employee was a minor when injured, and that
under normal conditions his wages would be expected to increase, 'the fact may be
considered in arriving at his average weekly wages.
Under this provision, compensation could be increased accordingly.
The California statute arranges a schedule depending upon the per-
centage of disability and provides that, in determining such percent-
ages, account shall" be taken of the nature of the physical injury or
disfigurement, the occupation of the injured employee, and his age
at the time of such injury. Under such a statute, a disability which
interferes with the injured person carrying on his particular trade or
occupation will be considered as involving a greater percentage of
disability than a similar injury inflicted upon a person engaged in
an occupation either not affected by the injury or affected to a less
extent.
The Massachusetts Industrial Accident Board, in its report for the
year 1913, states that it considers that the California law provides
the most scientific method of computing partial disability, and that
it hopes to present a similar schedule for the consideration of the
Massachusetts Legislature.
REPORT OF COMMISSION. 41
There has not been sufficient experience under these schedules to
permit a report as to their operation. However, it is apparent that
the subject of working out a proper schedule is receiving considerable
attention in the various States and involves a problem for the future.
XXI. CONTRIBUTION BY EMPLOYEES.
When the agitation for the substitution of workmen's compensa-
tion acts for employers' liability laws began to crystallize in the
United States, a strong movement developed among employers to
have the workingmeii contribute from their wages a part of the fund
from which compensation should be paid. In fact, the first Ohio
statute provided that compensation to workmen should be based
upon 60 per cent of their wages, 10 per cent of which should be con-
tributed by the workmen. It is interesting to note, however, that
while this law was in effect the employers did not as a rule require
the workmen to make this contribution, even though having a legal
right to deduct the 10 per cent of the cost from the pay roll. Em-
ployers stated to the commission that while originally they favored
the plan of a joint contribution, they found that in operation it Was
impracticable and therefore of doubtful value, stating as a rule that
no such deduction was made, and explaining that they preferred to
bear the entire cost themselves. Ohio employers said that they not
only did not want to bother with the bookkeeping details connected
with the workmen's contribution but they did not want to take any-
thing out of the employees' pay. The present Ohio law does not
require the workmen to make any contribution.
When, some years ago, the question of joint contributions by
employers and workmen was under consideration by the National
Civic Federation (which, it is to be said was the first association in
the country that undertook a study of workmen's compensation
legislation and declared for it), it was the unanimous opinion of all
the groups which comprise the federation that industry should bear
all the financial burden of any compensation laws to be enacted in
any of the States and that workmen should not be called upon to
make any contribution to the fund from which compensation was to
be paid. The sentiment expressed was that inasmuch as an injured
workman accepted less than full wages as compensation, and in addi-
tion bore all the physical pain and mental suffering, he should not
be called upon for any further contribution. This recommendation
of the National Civic Federation, no doubt, had much to do in obtain-
ing an acceptance of the now prevailing principle that industry alone
ought to bear the financial burden and pay the monetary cost of
compensation to workmen injured in the course of their employment.
A representative of the Cleveland Employers' Association stated
to this commission:
I think the subject of having the workmen contribute to the fund, and sharing the
payment of a portion of the fund, would be of some interest to you. That is a very
unhappy proposition. I do not know of an instance where any portion of the premium
was collected from the workmen . That feature of the law is not received in good favor.
When asked for his opinion as to whether the attitude of the
employers would have been different with regard to the joint con-
tribution if the amount to be deducted from the workmen's pay had
been larger than the 10 per cent provided by the Ohio law, he said:
I do not think so. The employers did not care to bother with it.
42 WORKMEN 's COMPENSATION.
He further stated that there was a feeling of dislike on the part of
employers to make deduction from the pay of the men in their
employ, and that —
such procedure always entails a great deal of explanation and it usually results in
some ill feeling, even if it is not manifested on the surface.
XXII. LITIGATION UNDER COMPENSATION ACTS.
Legal controversies between employer and employee arising out of
the latter's right to compensation or damages for injuries in his em-
ployment have practically ceased to exist among those employers and
employees operating under workmen's compensation acts. Even in
those States in which the employee is given some remedy in addition
to his right to compensation, he very seldom exercises that remedy
and it has become practically a dead letter and, as appears elsewhere,
the more modern statutes are eliminating all remedies except the
right to the statutory compensation. So far as the employee's rights
under the compensation acts are concerned, there is but very little
controversy, and his right to and the amount of compensation, and
the length of his disability, are generally easily ascertained and agreed
to by the parties, and such agreement confirmed by the industrial
accident boards. Disagreements between the parties are decided
by arbitrations with the right in most cases to appeal from the arbi-
trations to the full board and from the board to the courts upon ques-
tions of law. The decisions of industrial accident boards upon ques-
tions of fact are final. As a rule, the payment of benefits under the
law commence with the expiration of the first week of compensation.
In case of a difference between the employer and the employee call-
ing for an arbitration, the arbitrations as a rule delay the payments
not more than three or four weeks and in case of an appeal to the full
board not more than four weeks additional. Quite frequently the
payments commence even though an arbitration is called for, as the
question involved in arbitration may not affect the amount of each
weekly payment. This is also true in some cases where the appeal
to the Supreme Court on a question of law is involved. The appeals
to the Supreme Court, as a rule, involve the construction of some
provision of the statute and are made for the purpose of settling the
law upon that point. Such appeals have not occurred to any great
extent; the courts have been resorted to for the purpose of settling
(questions arising under compensation acts in not more than 10 cases
in any one State. The statistics from the State of Michigan well
illustrate this situation. In that State, during the period of the first
fifteen months of the operation of the act, approximately 15,000
compensation claims were paid, involving only 266 arbitrations, 61
appeals from the arbitration committee to the full board, and 10
appeals to the Supreme Court. In Wisconsin, during the period be-
tween July 1, 1912, and July 1, 1913. compensation was paid by the
employers, without order of the commission, in 3,048 cases, hearings
held and awards made in 50 cases, and 5 cases carried to the court for
review. This condition is characteristic of the condition existing in
at least all of the compensation States having industrial accident
boards.
REPORT OF COMMISSION. 43
XXIII. ADMINISTRATION BY INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT BOARDS.
The compensation acts of Massachusetts, Connecticut, Ohio, Cali-
fornia, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, Texas, Nevada, Oregon,
West Virginia, New York, and Washington provide for administra-
tion through an industrial accident board, though known in some of
these States by different names. The Illinois act did not originally
provide for it, but by the new act such a board is created. These
ooards are appointed by the governor of the State. Settlement
agreements made between an employer and employee are filed with
the board and must be approved by it to be effective. All questions
are settled by the board and are conclusive, except questions of law,
which are considered by the courts only on appeal from the industrial
accident board.
Except in Texas and Illinois, whose boards have been organized
very recently, and in West Virginia, Nevada, and New York (not
yet appointed) this commission has held consultations with mem-
bers of boards in all the States in which any exists. These officials,
without exception, so far as this commission has been able to ascer-
tain, are taking an active interest in their work and giving general
satisfaction to both employers and employees.
When parties to a compensation case are unable to agree an acci-
dent commission stands ready to hold informal hearings and aid in
adjusting the differences. In case this method fails, one of the mem-
bers of the board, together with two other persons selected by the
disputants, act as arbitrators. Under the law, a decision of these
arbitrators may be appealed to the entire board.
The members of the boards become specialists. They get to under-
stand problems that arise under the administration of the law; they
know the type of people who come before them; they work out a
uniform administration of the law; they bring about prompt adjust-
ments; when accidents are reported and compensation agreements
not entered into, they investigate; and they quite frequently return
agreements for correction which contain amounts not proper for the
particular injury and the consequent loss of time. In most of these
States employers are required either by statutory provisions or by
rule adopted by the board to file with it receipts snowing that weekly
payments have been actually paid as directed by the board. Every-
where, both employer and employee testify to the satisfaction given
by the accident boards. They agree that the members of these boards
are not only in full sympathy with the law but that in their decisions
they give trie employee the benefit of the doubt and all other benefits
he is entitled to under the law. A few employers have resented State
interference in what they claim to be their own affairs. Employers
in general, however, state that they wish to uphold the law and have
it carried out; and that they would rather have a liberal construction
of a statute than be subjected to bickerings, antagonisms, and uncer-
tainties. As already stated, what they are most interested in is to
have the law uniformly executed and all uncertainties removed, so
that they may know definitely the methods of the administering
body and the burden that is likely to be placed upon their industries.
The fact that these boards have the power to investigate, and to
refuse to approve settlement agreements in cases of noncompliance
44 WOBKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
with the law, makes employers, and insurers careful .in their adjust-
ments and in their other proceedings under it. The employers and
insurers of a State must in the course of the administration of com-
pensation meet the same board in connection with every accident
that occurs. Every employer knows that if he deceives or trifles
with the board, his future acts will be subjected to a keener scrutiny.
Every insurance company knows that if it does not treat employees
fairly, or attempts to take advantage of them, the industrial accident
board will know it and will be suspicious of its future acts.
The necessity that a board or official shall be intrusted with the
powers that are invested in the industrial accident boards, and that
failure to do so opens the door to fraud and imposition upon em-
ployees, is apparent when one considers that a great majority of the
claims arising under the compensation law are for periods covering
but a few weeks, involving a comparatively small amount of money,
and that in many cases an injured employee, either from unfamili-
arity with the law or from the feeling that the amount involved would
not justify him in going into the courts with his claim or employing
an attorney, would accept a less amount than he is entitled to under
the law. With this opportunity open to them, employers, either
themselves or through adjusters, might make settlements to their
own advantage. No matter ho\y well intentioned an employer or an
insurance company might be, if its adjuster could make a percentage
of saving in settling accident claims, a competitive advantage would
be obtained and this practice would soon become general.
This state of affairs is illustrated in New Jersey, and the oppor-
tunity exists in other States acting without industrial commissions.
In New Jersey there is no State record showing whether or not
employees are being fairly treated under the act. By the law, settle-
ments must be reported to the commissioner of labor, who places
them on file, but he has no power to investigate or to supervise the
settlements, and from statements made to this commission it would
seem that only a part of the settlements are reported to him.
An examination of the records of the commissioner of labor of
New Jersey showed that many of the reported settlements are
manifestly irregular. The following are examples, it being an easy
matter to select others: Finger amputated; injured party entitled to
minimum amount of $425, plus unknown amount due for lost time;
received only $250. Half of first ringer amputated; entitled to
.$166; received $151. Death; beneficiaries entitled to $1,500;
received $1,100. Death; entitled to $1,500; received $380. Death;
entitled to $1,500; received $1,149. In each of the last three— the
death cases — a lump sum was paid without procurement of an order
of the court, as required by the statute. In another case, in which
the beneficiaries were entitled to at least $1,500, they received
nothing. On the face of these reports they appeared to be for a less
amount than the law prescribes. Considering the opportunity for
irregular adjustments that exists under the New Jersey law, it is
fair to suppose that at least in some of these cases an injustice was
committed. There is no way of proving whether or not the em-
ployees of New Jersey are receiving the compensation to which they
are entitled. That is a serious defect in the system of that State.
From information received by this commission, it seems probable
that not over 60 per cent of the amounts payable under the New
REPORT OF COMMISSION. 45
Jersey statute are being paid. The opportunity for fraud exists,
fraud that it is difficult to detect. This condition could not exist in
a State having an industrial accident board with power to approve
all settlements and follow up the payments and see that they are
made in full.
The defect in the New Jersey law, with some of its consequences,
was well described by Commissioner of Labor Bryant of that State
in an address made at the 1913 convention of the New Jersey Fed-
eration of Labor, in which he said :
New Jersey has one of the most practical and workable compensation laws or em-
ployers' liability laws that were ever enacted in this country. It was practically
the forerunner of this class of legislation, a type which has been largely followed by
other States, but there is one defect which I consider serious, and which should be
remedied. That law, after having been drafted, is practically turned adrift to work
out its own salvation. I belie ve there should be some supervisory power over its
operation. Employers and employees enter into compensation settlements abso-
lutely at variance with the compensation schedule indicated by the law. The very
object of the passage of the law was to see that the injured operative received fair and
just compensation. This compensation was to be paid to him absolutely in accord
with a specific schedule which had been prearranged. He was to get the entire
amount. It was not to be frittered away in court costs or lawyers' fees. That was
the fundamental object of the law. Fortunately we had a law enacted which requires
the reporting of all settlements from casualty companies to the department of labor
and also all settlements between a manufacturer and an employee providing thero
had been no insurance company in the matter. I want to tell you what actuall>
happened yesterday. A girl came into our office seeking advice. She was injured
on April 25, losing one of the phalanges of the first finger, and was unable to resume
work until July 10, a period of 11 weeks. She was entitled to $21.50 for medical
aid for the first 2 weeks, and $31.50 for temporary disability, plus $61.25 for per-
manent injury. The permanent injury compensation was not given to that girl,
compensation'for the amount which she would lose by inability to work, because the
^irl rlfcd to go through the balance of her life with a portion of her finger missing, and
it was intended by that law that she should receive compensation on that basis.
This is the settlement made with that girl: Her doctor's bill of $13.50 was paid by
the employer, but instead of $92.75 compensation due she was offered an insurance
check for $28, providing she returned $14 of that $28 to her employer. Fortunately
for that girl she came to our office and explained the matter. \Ve made out the
schedule I have read to you and gave it to her, showed her the section of the law, told
her what she was entitled to, ana told her to go to Judge Knichtel and get it. The
girl fortunately had intelligence enough to come to the department of labor, but many
such cases are being settled throughout the State without any supervision. So, it
really brings itself back in a measure to the days of the old claim agents, when a
man went to an injured person with a handbag full of $1 bills and tried to get the
family to sign off for the undertaker's bill in one room while the remains were in
another. That was the reason for passing this law. I maintain there should be some
supervisory power and that before the- employer is discharged of all responsibility
and liability, the compensation should be approved by somebody. You might think
that was an isolated case; of course it is a horrible example. We hate to think that
any civilized person would be so small as to take advantage of a poor girl under such
circumstances, but actual statistics prove that of all the reports we receive, 19 per
cent of those settlements were made contrary to the schedule. Now, the very unfor-
tunate part of our compensation law is the fact that our records show that approxi-
mately 19 per cent of the cases reported to us were paid in a faulty or irregular manner.
Seven per cent did not receive any compensation. Fourteen* per cent did not re-
ceive medical aid.
These figures are obtained from the reports filed by employers and they are ba.-^'l
on the requirements set forth in the compensation schedule, which, of course, repre-
sents the serious aspect, that the real object of the law in 26 per cent of these cases wa.s
evaded. Some amounts were small and some were large. In one case $425 were due
and they paid $250 and left the injured party short $175. The man signed for a dis-
charge of all obligations. In another case $168 were due and $151 were paid, leaving
a shortage of only $15, but that is a whole lot to the man injured and not able to work
and get full compensation and having perhaps a family dependent upon him. In
another case a party entitled to $282 received $257, leaving a shortage of S25. Let us
ake a fatal case. In one case where the dependents upon a person killed were enti-
46 WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
tied to $1,500 the compensation paid was only $380, leaving a shortage of $1,120. In
another case where $1,500 were due to dependents of a workman killed the compensa-
tion paid was $650, leaving a shortage of $850. It is possible in some such cases, if we
had heard both sides, that after the thing was analyzed and we were thoroughly
acquainted with all conditions our computation might not have been absolutely cor-
rect, but in another case it would seem from the statements signed by the employers
themselves that the figures we have arrived at are apparently correct, and in one case,
according to all the records before us, the dependents were entitled to $2,700 and^
according to the settlement, nobody got anything. The report was filed in the office
at Trenton. These settlements are made out of court, and that is exactly what the
law contemplates. It was not contemplated that every time a workman and his
employer wanted to make such a settlement they must hire lawyers and go into court,
but when they get together and make a settlement and the settlement is filed with
the Department of Labor, I maintain that somebody should have authority to go over
those figures and see that the poor man is getting his just due.
In Minnesota, while that State does not have an industrial accident
board and the law is administered through the department of labor
and industries, the commissioner of labor believes that the labor
department "is watching the operation of the law as closely as any
industrial commission could do, and that the courts are construing
the law in a very liberal manner and are making awards in most cases
in the interest of the employee." The provisions of the Minnesota
law, designed to protect the employee against an improper settle-
ment, require that settlements shall be substantially according to the
provisions of the act and approved by the judge of the district court ;
that copies of settlements shall be filed with the commissioner of
labor, and that he shall have power to assist employees in adjusting
differences, shall observe in detail the operation of the act throughout
the State and make report thereof to each session of the legislature,
and shall make suggestions and recommendations as to changes to
the legislature. This is' an improvement on the New Jersey law in
that it requires settlement agreements to be approved by the judge
of the district court, whereas in New Jersey no official is charged with
this duty.
Of the other States not having industrial accident boards, Rhode
Island is the only one requiring that its settlement agreements be
approved by public officials. In that State they must be approved
by a justice of the superior court. There is no provision of law requir-
ing the approval of settlement agreements in Kansas, Nebraska, New
Hampshire, New Jersey, and Arizona.
The States haying compensation acts without industrial accident
boards to administer the law are Arizona, Maryland, Nebraska, New
Jersey, New Hampshire, Kansas, Minnesota, and Rhode Island.
In Ohio, Washington, and California the board of awards admin-
isters the insurance fund and also makes the award; that is, it fixes
the assessment and collects the fund from the employers and also
makes the legal award and payment out of the fund to the bene-
ficiaries.
The wisdom of this system — that is, the system of empowering the
industrial accident board to collect the premiums from employers and
to administer the funds — has been called into question. In response
to an inquiry in regard to this view of the Washington law one of the
members of the Washington commission stated :
I have carefully watched the progress of the work for the last six months at least,
and it seems to me there is a tendency to settle with the men before they are com-
pletely well, in the hope of getting them off the pay roll.
That is; the compensation pay roll.
REPORT OF COMMISSION. 47
In response to a question as to the advisability of having two com-
missions, one to administer the State insurance fund and the other
to pass upon the awards, the answer was made very deliberately and
after reflection :
I would answer this question thus: In my opinion the further the board dealing
with the industrial unfortunates is removed from the board that has charge of the fund
necessary to meet these obligations the better.
In Ohio, which also has a State fund administered by the indus-
trial accident board, this commission heard no objections raised
similar to those raised in Washington. As a matter of fact, Wash-
ington is the only State in which we heard this question discussed.
This system only went into operation in California on the 1st of
January, 1914.
Texas has an industrial accident board, although the law does not
require the approval by that board of settlement agreements before
they become effective.
While the Wisconsin commission is not required to pass upon set-
tlement agreements, it has power to set aside, modify, or confirm
such an agreement upon application made within one year from the
time of the compromise. The commission, by its rules, requires the
employer to file a report every four weeks during the continuance of
disability, showing what payments have been made and the final
disposition of the cases, and when the disability ceases to file a final
receipt with the commission.
Under the present Illinois act, settlement agreements may be made
without the approval of the State board, although the statute con-
tains a provision forbidding any employee, personal representative,
or beneficiary to waive any of the provisions of the act in regard to
the amount of compensation which may be payable, except after
approval by the industrial board.
The New York statute, to become effective July 1, 1914, involves
still a different method of protecting employees against the making of
improper settlements. It goes further than providing a board or
official with power to pass upon settlement agreements, in effect pre-
venting the making of agreements of this kind by giving to the
commission, known as the workmen's compensation commission,
power to hear the evidence, examine the proofs, and make the awards
in the first instance in all cases.
It also requires that all insurance carriers and employers carrying
their own risk shall deposit with the workmen's compensation com-
mission financial awards due, and that the same shall be disbursed
by them to the beneficiary.
While the Massachusetts and Michigan industrial accident boards
permit the employer or insurance company to pay direct to the
employee, it protects him against fraud by requiring, first, that the
settlement agreements be approved by the board and, secondly, that
the employer or insurance company file weekly receipts showing that
the payments have been made, and then, like Wisconsin, require the
filing of a final receipt showing the final payment. In fact, all indus-
trial boards or State commissions have power under the statute to
make rules and regulations and can make rules similar to that of
Massachusetts, Michigan, and Wisconsin, and, in most States having
such commissions, rules of this general character have been made.
48 WORKMEN S COMPENSATION.
The New York statute goes a step further, and instead of relying
upon the protection afforded by the filing of receipts showing that
the compensation awarded has been actually paid, requires the
employer to make the payments to the New York commission, which
then pays the injured employee or his family.
The mere requirement that settlement agreements must be ap-
proved by a public official does not entirely protect the employee
unless some provision is made for following up the settlement agree-
ments and knowing whether or not the provisions of the agreement
are carried into effect and the beneficiaries actually paid. The Mich-
igan and Massachusetts commissions are required under the law to
exercise more supervision in this respect than any of the other com-
missions. The statute of Massachusetts requires that within 60 days
after the termination of the disability of the injured employee tne
insurer shall file with the board a statement showing the total pay-
ments made or to be made for compensation and for medical services
for such injured employee.
The Michigan plan of having receipts filed with the board for each
weekly payment, followed by a receipt in full when the final payment
is maae, was commented upon by the chairman of the industrial acci-
dent board at a conference with this commission, when, in picking up
a file of papers, he said :
Here is a case that has been running for some little time that has an agreement in
regard to compensation on the face of it, and here are receipts for compensation paid
on the account. This continues right along until that checks out in full and the
settlement is received.
Forms illustrating the methods pursued by boards or commissions
are found in Appendix No. 4.
In conclusion, the States having various methods of supervising
settlement agreements may be divided into groups as follows:
(1) Those States which, while permitting settlement agreements,
provide no method whatever of supervising the agreements;
(2) Those States requiring the filing of such agreements with a
public official without giving that official power to approve or dis-
approve them;
\3) Those States requiring the approval of such agreements by
some bfficial other than an industrial accident board;
(4) Those States which, though having industrial accident boards,
do not require the board or any other official to approve or disapprove
the settlement agreements;
(5) Those States having an industrial accident board and requiring
the approval of settlement agreements by such board and the filing
of receipts and vouchers with the board, showing the payments had
been made pursuant to the settlement agreements; and
(6) Those States not permitting settlement agreements, but requir-
ing that all cases be submitted to the State board and that the amount
of compensation as fixed by the board be collected from the employer
or insurance company by the board and in turn paid out by the board
to the injured workman or beneficiaries.
XXIV. METHODS OF INSURING.
Under a compensation act weekly payments replace the lump sum
paid under the liability law. But an employer solvent at the time of
an accident, and hence competent to pay the full amount of a judg-
REPORT OF COMMISSION. 49
ment for a lump sum, may become insolvent afterwards and be unable
to meet the series of weekly payments. An employee who is incapaci-
tated for only a few weeks may be able to stand the loss in case the
employer becomes insolvent during that time, a circumstance obvi-
ously less likely to arise than in the case of payments running for a
long period. In the latter class of cases the injury itself being serious,
the need for certainty of payment of compensation is the greater.
That it is usually to the benefit of the injured employee and his
family that payments be made weekly instead of in a lump sum is
generally accepted. Employees while recognizing this fact demand
that they be secured in some way against the possible insolvency of
the employer during the weekly payment period. The justice of this
position was generally acknowledged by the employers when the
commission met at its conferences. Many employers are but tempo-
rarily in a particular line of business or a special undertaking.
In New Hampshire an employer who accepts the compensation act
is required to procure a certificate from the commissioner of labor as
to his financial ability to meet the payments or to give a bond to the
effect that he will do so. Of the 21 employers in New Hampshire who
have accepted the compensation act one has given such a bond, and
the solvency of the others has been approved by the commissioner.
Ohio met this difficulty by creating a State insurance fund, to be
maintained by assessments on employers and administered by the
State board of awards, the latter passing upon all claims for com-
pensation.
Washington, adopting in principle the same method, also created
a State fund, but made contribution to it compulsory by those em-
ployers covered by the compensation act.
Oregon, Nevada, and West Virginia also created State insurance
funds, to which employers accepting the act must contribute. This
constitutes the only method 01 insurance of those who accept the
elective compensation acts of those States.
In Massachusetts, an employer accepting the act is required to
insure his employees. The act provides for the formation of a mutual
company. The directors of the company were appointed by the
governor and afterwards elected by the policyholders. The act re-
quires that employers accepting it must insure their employees either
in this mutual company or in any other mutual company or a liability
company authorized under the laws of the State.
Texas, whose act went into operation October 1, 1913, followed
the Massachusetts plan.
Wisconsin provides that employers coming under its act, unless
given permission by the State accident board to carry their own risk,
must take out insurance with either a mutual or a stock company.
The Michigan act, which was passed after the Massachusetts 'and
Wisconsin laws, adopted all four methods of insurance; that is, it
permitted employers whose solvency was approved by the State
board of awards to carry their own risk but required others to take
insurance in either a mutual insurance company or a stock company
or in the State insurance fund, the latter being administered by the
State insurance commissioner and maintained by assessment on the
employers electing to contribute to the State fund.
The California act, in effect January 1, 1914, is similar to the
Michigan law in that it creates a State insurance fund, but does not
30003— S. Doc. 410, 63-2 4
50 WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
make insurance compulsory. It provides merely that the employer
may insure in a mutual company, a stock company, or the State in-
surance fund.
Under the Connecticut law every employer accepting the act must
furnish to the insurance commissioner satisfactory proof of his
financial ability to pay compensation directly to injured employees or
their beneficiaries, and file with the insurance commissioner accept-
able security guaranteeing the payment of compensation, or else
insure his full liability in a stock or mutual company or association.
The Illinois act provides that the employer, upon written command
by the industrial board, must: (1) File with the industrial board a
sworn statement showing his financial ability to pay the compensa-
tion normally required; or (2) furnish security, indemnity, or a bond
guaranteeing payment by the employer of the compensation normally
required to be paid; or (3) insure to a reasonable amount his normal
liability to pay such compensation in a mutual or stock company or
association; or (4) make some provision, subject to the approval of
the board, for securing payment of the compensation provided for by
the law.
Under the Iowa act, which does not take effect until July 1, 1914,
every employer electing to accept the act must insure his liability,
either in some mutual or stock company, except upon proof of his
financial responsibility, approved by the insurance department of the
State and the industrial commissioner, or by depositing with the in-
surance department satisfactory security.
Under the New York act an employer must secure compensation
to his employees either by insuring in the State fund, a stock com-
pany, or a mutual association, or by furnishing satisfactory proof to
the commission of his financial ability to pay such compensation
himself, in which case the commission may, in its discretion, require
a deposit with it of securities of the kind prescribed in the insurance
law, the amount to be determined by the commission.
Arizona, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Nebraska, California, Minne-
sota, and Kansas do not, under their compensation acts, compel in-
surance on the part of the employer.
Under the employers' liability law there had grown up in this and
other countries a system of indemnity insurance by which the em-
ployer protected himself against losses from liability damages.
This insurance was carried both in stock and mutual companies,
though some States did not permit the organization of mutual com-
panies, and whatever business employers did in such a case was by
correspondence between the insured and the home office of the mutual
company. These methods of insurance did not protect the employee,
but were adopted by the employer for the purpose of protecting him-
self against lar^e and unexpected losses which might be ruinous to
his business and of permitting him to know to a certainty the amount
he must pay yearly. This practice spread his losses over a term of
years instead of subjecting nim to damages at any particular time.
While indemnifying the employer for any amount he might pay out
under the law, the payments were generally made directly by the
insurance company to the employee, and they were often made
whether the liability actually existed or was probable through judg-
ment against the employer in an action at law. In some cases small
REPOKT OF COMMISSION. 51
amounts were paid even in the absence of liability or where liability
if existing was doubtful. Such payments were usually conceded on
the theory that a lawsuit would involve expense and that it was
economical to pay the amount to the injured person or his family
and close the case. This resulted at times in the payment of ridicu-
lously small amounts for serious injuries.
Statistics show that liability was effective in about two out of ten
cases. The extent of the employers' liability, of course, differed in
the States, and the statutes of each State changed from tune to time
while jury awards varied in amount. This state of affairs rendered
liability uncertain, involved litigation and wasteful expense and.
resulted not only in a large portion of the premiums of mutual and
stock companies being expended in litigation, but also in antago-
nisms between employer and employee and between these two and
the insurance companies.
The policies of the stock and mutual companies were the same and
rndemnified the employer against loss under the act. The funda-
mental distinction between the two kinds of companies was that the
stock company was operated for the profit of the stockholders while
the mutual company was intended to return both profits and the
savings through administration expenses to the policyholders.
Notwithstanding the expected economies of the mutual companies
the larger part of the business was written by stock companies.
Employers were aware that under the mutual companies they were
liable to assessment, an uncertainty in expenditures not existing in
dealing with a stock company.
Under a workman's compensation law the insurance problem im-
mediately changes. Instead of indemnifying an employer against
uncertain liability, actually occurring in only a small percentage of
injuries, the insurance is regularly made in favor of the employee in
order to pay amounts fixed by the statute. Under a compensation
act all doubt as to liability is removed, as it exists in practically all
cases. The amount of compensation due under the statutes involves
little litigation, and the tendency is toward elimination. (See Sec-
tion XXII.) Consequently this waste is nearly done away with and
the possibility of differences, with consequent antagonism between
the employer, employee, and the insurer is proportionately removed.
This is especially true, as has already appeared, in those States having
industrial accident boards, where, the insurance being nearly if not
quite compulsory, the cost of soliciting buisness is diminished and
quite surely will continue to diminish.
This commission has been unable to find any differences in the
treatment of the injured employee or his family in those States in
which insurance is written either by stock companies or mutual
companies, or by a State insurance fund, or through the employer
carrying his own risk. As to these four methods of insurance, the
law seems to be complied with through one mode as well as through
any other, while payments are equally prompt. In fact, if evidence
of any difference at all has appeared it has existed in the case of small
employers who, not having had many accidents, have not become
familiar with the law to the same extent as have the large employers
and the mutual or stock companies or insurance fund officials. From
the employers' standpoint, no objection was brought forward in the
52 WORKMEN 's COMPENSATION.
States having eithei or all of these methods of insurance. The em-
ployees evinced an interest in the method of insurance only in so far
as it might increase the cost of insurance and thus bring the employers
to oppose the establishment of what the workmen feel to be a proper
schedule of compensation. Employers stated to the commission
that as they are paying twice as much for compensation now as they
did for liability insurance under the old law, they feel that if they are
willing to stand that extra cost they ought to be given the widest
latitude possible in adopting any methods of insurance not injurious
to the employees' interests. This desire on the part of the em-
ployers is very general; even in Ohio a large employer who voluntarily
accepted the Ohio law and its methods ol insurance stated to this
commission that while he was satisfied with the Ohio law as at
present working he would prefer that it give employers an option as
to their method of insuring. The feeling of employers upon this sub-
ject was expressed by a representative of the safety committee of
the Illinois Steel Co., which had accepted the compensation acts of
all the States in which it has plants, when he said :
In my judgment, the wider the options given to the employers in that respect the
greater the satisfaction the compensation act will give. For instance, many men do
not look at the matter in the same light. Some of the employers prefer to take out
indemnity insurance; some prefer to carry their own insurance; some prefer to insure
in a mutual company; some prefer to deposit the money in a bank or trust company
for the benefit of the injured person; and there might be other ways. If you can give
the employers the widest options in respect to the matter, or the widest latitude in
the terms, employers will be better friends (of compensation) and the workmen will
receive just as much protection. Therefore, I believe the optional plan is much
preferable.
Employers naturally exhibited an active interest hi the cost and
administration of the law. Anxious to have access to the different
methods of insurance consistent with a proper protection of the
employee, they were opposed to giving the stock companies an
exclusive field, and as a result the laws of several of the States have
been so amended as to permit the organization of mutual companies
and the establishment of State insurance funds. Xo opposition to
the organization of State insurance was to be found except where
the State fund was made the only insurance medium. The cir-
cumstance that the mutual companies are not writing as much
business as the stock companies, or that State insurance funds may
be doing less business than the stock companies, does not signify
that these methods are not essential. The fact that employers who
feel that the rates of stock companies are too high may turn to the
mutual company or the State insurance fund has a healthy effect.
It has resulted indeed in reducing the compensation insurance rates.
Since the enactment of compensation laws reduction has taken place
among all three classes of insurers. The work of mutual companies
is in its infancy; many have been organized since the adoption of
the compensation acts, and the method may be expected to grow in
favor as employers become educated to its value.
Debate is being carried on among State insurance fund officials,
mutual companies and stock companies, as to which will prove the
most effective agent in accident prevention. This rivalry is whole-
som?. It is claimed by some that State insurance fund officials will
not have the incentive and elasticity of administration and of merit
rating that exists among mutual and stock companies. This is a
REPORT OF COMMISSION. 53
matter for future development. Some employers say that thev see
no reason why State fund officials, acting under the spur of competi-
tion with the mutual and stock companies, can not administer these
funds as well as the companies, provided politics is eliminated and
honest, capable men appointed to office. The mutual companies
hold that it will be for the common interest of employers in this
form of organization to keep down accidents in order to increase
dividends and lower rates. Officers of stock companies assert that
witb their own officiate working under the spur of the competition
with mutual companies and States insurance they will be under a
strong incentive to preserve their business and retain their positions.
It is immaterial how the employers insure so long as the insurance
protects the workmen.
POLICIES FOR BENEFIT OF WORKMEN AND FOR UNLIMITED LIABILITY.
In Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Minnesota, Nebraska, Iowa, and
Texas all insurance policies under compensation acts are required
to be issued for unlimited liability and for the benefit of the employees.
In Michigan and Wisconsin the law does not so provide, but the
Industrial Accident Board requires that all employers who accept the
act must take out insurance of that kind. New Jersey does not
require unlimited insurance and has no industrial accident board to
impose this provision, but the companies writing insurance in that
State and in California are issuing policies for unlimited amounts,
payable to the employees and their families, regardless of the possible
insolvency of the employer, so that employees are fully protected by
the policies in vogue in all the States mentioned. The insurance
companies protect every policy in case of catastrophe by forming a
reinsurance bureau, contributed to by all the companies, out of which
all claims for a single accident in excess of $25,000 are. paid.
CARRYING OWN RISK.
Up to the present time, the officials passing upon the financial
responsibility of employers applying for permission to carry their
own risk in those States requiring insurance, in the absence of special
permission, have apparently complied with the spirit and purpose of
the statutes by granting the privilege in only a small number of
cases.
In Michigan, out of 10,700 employers who have accepted the act,
only 617 have been permitted to cam" their own risk.
In Wisconsin, where the number of employers coining under the
act can not be definitely determined for the reason that all employers
of the State are under the act except those who have rejected it, only
about 400 employers have been given permission by the industrial
commission to carry their own risk.
In New Jersey, Rhode Island, Minnesota, Nebraska, and Kansas,
where no insurance requirements are made, it is impossible to tell
how many employers are carrying their own risk.
The compensation acts have not been in force long enough to
determine what proportion of deferred payments will never be paid
on account of the failure of the employer to insure the employee.
Some large employers in Massachusetts who have accepted the
compensation act have taken their insurance in the Massachusetts
54 WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
Employees' Insurance Association, and each member has been placed
by that association in a special class, so that no one of them is affected
by the conduct of other employers, and each receives in dividends
its own savings, less the proportion of the premiums used for the
payment of overhead expenses of the association.
There is considerable demand on the part of large employers for
permission to carry their risk without insurance. They recognize
the danger to the employee of such a plan unless it is carefully safe-
guarded, but claim that it ought to be permitted in cases of undoubted
solvency, attended with the power of a board or commission to revoke
the privilege whenever the employer's financial soundness becomes
doubtful. However, this revocation, while protecting employees
injured later, would not protect employees injured previously and
entitled to deferred payments running through a long period during
which the employer might become insolvent. The latter situation
might be avoided by giving the State accident board power, first,
to require a bond, deposit or other security for deferred payments in
case the financial condition of the employer warranted such a step;
and, secondly, to decide that upon the failure to make the deposit or
give the bond or other security, the employee should be entitled to
a judgment for the full amount of the deferred payments.
The arguments offered to this commission in support of permitting
employers of undoubted financial ability to carry their own risk are :
(1) The economy of administration, greatly reducing cost; (2) the
existence of safety committees and well-administered schemes of
accident prevention, reducing accidents and giving the employer a
financial benefit in the lessened cost of compensation; (3) the exist-
ence of well-equipped hospital accommodations and a well-organized
surgical force, giving immediate relief to injured employees and
diminishing the cost of medical attendance; (4) the prevention of
the relation of employer and employee from being severed during
the existence of temporary injury; (5) the increased interest on the
part of the employer in accident prevention, certain as he is to receive
a financial benefit resulting from the reduction of accidents and from
the resultant decrease of compensation cost; whereas, if he should
carry insurance, it must, under the very best merit system, remain
questionable as to whether or not he could receive all the financial
saving arising from the reduction of accidents in his plant.
In Massachusetts, large employers with pay rolls running as high
as $2,000,000 annually refused to accept the compensation act,
giving as their reason that it would require them to carry insurance.
The argument in favor of permitting the employer to carry his own
risk, and thus to keep in touch with his employee during his injury,
retaining the relation of employer and employee, so that the injured
man could readily return to his position after injury, applies only in
case of temporary injuries or those which do not totally incapacitate
the employee, but permit him to work for the same employer at
some other than his habitual employment, paying him more than
the compensation act, and at the same time benefiting the employer
and reducing the amount he should have to pay him in the form of
compensation. It was admitted that this argument does not apply
to injuries that result in death or that unfit the employee for working
again for the same employer. With regard to these cases, employers
seem to be willing to have the responsibility of making the weekly
payments transferred to some third party, either an insurance com-
EEPOET OF COMMISSION. 55
pany, a surety company, a bank or other depository. In fact, the
amendment to the Illinois statute, recently adopted, which permits
the employer, even when not insured, to transfer his liability to an
agency of this kind, was the result of a demand by employers of that
State.
Under the new Illinois act any employer against whom liability may
exist for compensation may, with the approval of the industrial board,
be relieved therefrom by depositing the present value of the total
unpaid compensation for which liability exists, computed at 3 per cent
per annum, with the State treasurer or county treasurer in the county
where the accident happens, or with any State or national bank doing
business in that State, or in some other suitable depository approved
by the industrial board, the same to be paid out in installments to the
beneficiary, unless commuted to a lump sum or by the purchase of an
annuity in any insurance company granting annuities and licensed to
do business.
An officer of the Illinois Coal Operators' Mutual Liability Insurance
Co. stated before this commission that the above provision was placed
in the new Illinois act " at the earnest request of the employers of that
State." "There was," he said, "a very strong opposition expressed
to the idea of carrying on a pension system. While we realize in many
cases it might be beneficial and to the interest of persons receiving
compensation to receive the amount of the sum in periodical pay-
ments rather than in a lump sum, we felt that the State should assume
the details of the work in connection with that system and not impose
the burden on business men."
MAKING DEPOSIT.
Another method of protecting employees against their employer's
insolvency, which, however, has not been exercised to any great
extent, is authorized under several of the statutes. By it the em-
ployer is permitted, after compensation has been fixed, to relieve him-
self from further liability by making a sufficient deposit in a bank for
the benefit of beneficiaries. The Michigan Workmen's Compensation
Mutual Insurance Co. follows this plan with all its deferred payments
by depositing in the Union Trust Co. of Detroit the amount to which
the beneficiary is entitled and issuing to him a book of coupons or
checks executed and payable weekly. This plan has merit in the case
of uninsured employers, as it protects the employee against future
insolvency of the employer and imparts a sense of security to the
beneficiary, who, knowing that the amount has been deposited to his
credit in the bank, can draw upon it weekly or transfer the weekly
payment to his personal credit. This latter condition, by the state-
ment of witnesses, has actually occurred.
It was generally conceded by employers that, unless the law made
insurance compulsory in all cases, it ought to require that those who
do not insure the employees must after liability accrues make the
necessary deposit or else have judgment entered against them for the
full amount, the proceeds of the judgment, if collected, to be placed
to the credit of the beneficiary under the same conditions. This
would protect the employee against future insolvency of the employer,
but would not protect him against insolvency existing at the time of
the accident or of the entry of the judgment. The protection against
56 WOBKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
present insolvency could be strengthened by making the judgment a
preferred claim, even as against mortgages or other liens created after
the enactment of the law.
XXV. COST OF COMPENSATION.
There has not been sufficient experience under compensation
laws iii this country to determine just the amount of the burden, if
any, placed upon employers by these laws. There is no doubt but
that upon the whole the cost to employers is considerably more than
the cost under liability laws as they existed at the time of the adop-
tion of the compensation acts. While here and there one finds an
employer whose cost has been less under the compensation act than
it had previously been under liability laws, this condition is prin-
cipally due to the limited experience that these particular employers
have had. It can not be definitely ascertained whether or not' the
compensation act is costing employers more than the liability law,
with the three defenses taken away, would have cost them for the
reason that comparatively few employers have remained under the
liability law since these changes were made, and the experience
of those remaining under it has been too short. As pointed out in
Section III, in the absence of compensation acts, tne employers'
liability would eventually have been greatly increased over what it
is at present.
It is argued by many that the cost of workmen's compensation
does not place a burden upon employers or upon industry, as it
merely regulates a burden that already exists hi some form or other,
and distributes it by means of insurance, the cost of which, is eventu-
ally paid by the public.
While some employers complained of the increased burden placed
upon them by the compensation act, the commission found the
general fseling among them that the increased cost was not a real
burden and that there was a general willingness to pay it rather
than to revert to the old system of employers' liability. They feel
that compensation places one of the problems arising out of the
relation of employer and employee upon a just basis; and that the
cost, falling upon all employers, is added to the selling prices of
then1 commodities and is paid by the public. This condition is
brought about more readily in some industries than in others. It
constitutes an addition to the labor cost which, instead of being
paid out in the form of wages to be expended by the workman upon
their every-day living expenses, is placed in some one of the different
forms of insurance funds to be saved for the day when misfortune
overtakes the unfortunate victim of industrial accident while he is
engaged in producing the commodities or supplying the services
essential to the existence and happiness of the consumer. This
docs not mean that the actual cost to the public is necessarily increased,
as a large part of this cost is directly borne by the public without a
compensation act in the expenses of charities, court proceedings,
and otherwise. The commission has not been able to determine
definitely how much the court expenses will be reduced, but esti-
mates have been made, which it believes are fairly accurate, that in
large industrial centers at least a third of the time of the trial courts
has been consumed in employers' liability litigation. This is all
REPORT OF COMMISSION. 57
removed' under a compensation act so far as the trial courts are
concerned. If these figures are correct, the cost of jury fees will
be reduced one-third in manufacturing centers. To illustrate, hi a
county in the State of New York, having a population of about
300,000, the jurors' foes amounted to $44,883.17 during the year end-
ing September 30, 1912; if these are reduced one-third, the saving
to that county will be approximately $14,000 in jury fees alone.
The overseer of the poor 01 a larg? city in the Middle West stated
that the expense of his ofhce and the amount paid out for poor
relief has been reduced 25 per cent. A saving of poor-relief cost as
a result of a compensation act means more than the saving of the
cost arising directly from industrial accidents, for the reason that
where injured employees or their families are placed hi a position
where they are compelled to seek relief of this kind, there is danger
that some of them will be weak enough to acquire the habit, and
continue to seek such relief in later years, although the direct result
of the injury has been remedied.
A member of the Massachusetss industrial accident board made
the following deductions for the commission:
By the reduction in the number of accidents and a lessening of their severity,
hundreds of thousands of dollars in insurance premiums, now paid because of present
conditions, will be saved; just as fire insurance premiums are most materially reduced
for those who take steps to safeguard against fire.
Nearly one-half of the money now spent for workmen's compensation insurance
can be saved to the employers, while the wage earners will save the loss of the half-
wages they now lose when under compensation, for they will not be injured and will
therefore keep at work continuously instead of suffering pain personally, and their
families privation, if not actual want. Through this saving, other and material
benefits will accrue to the employees.
The present source of social waste runs into enormous figures. It is estimated by
those who have made a study of industrial accidents that 50 per cent or more of such
accidents are preventable: 25 per cent, judging from experience in those great work-
shops where this matter has been given most serious attention, can be prevented
by the adoption of safety devices; from 25 to 40 per cent can be eliminated by educa-
tional work, instilling the safety idea into the minds of the workers and, in fact, of all
the people in this Commonwealth.
The only information that this commission has received upon
the subject of increased cost under workmen's compensation laws
is that derived from 526 employers in different States, who reported
their cost under the act with a comparative statement of their cost
under the liability law for a similar period. These employers have
paid under the compensation acts a total of $1,215,690.50, and for
a similar period the same employers paid under the liability law,
either in the form of insurance premiums or in payments direct to
their employees, or both, the sum of $730,857.24. These reports,
divided into States, are as follows:
State.
Paid under
compensa-
tion act.
Paid under
liability
law.
California
519 500 39
$19 198.25
Illinois .
295 464.98
254, 020. 61
Kansas
2 656 85
2 058.90
Massachusetts
212, 782. 89
75,262.86
Michigan.
328 774.00
158, 838. 22
New Jersey
19 550 45
8 803.82
Ohio
52, 435. 12
32,881.73
Rhode Island
69,368.99
23,416.87
Washington
166 547.53
120 399 46
Wisconsin
50, 608. 30
36, 026. 52
58 WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
The Massachusetts industrial accident board, in its report for 1913,
publishes the result of its investigation as to the amounts paid benefi-
ciaries of employees who were not under the compensation act and
the amounts such beneficiaries would have received had the employees
been uder the compensation act. The board found that such bene-
ficiaries received only $60,322.42, an average amount in each case
of $701.42, whereas had the employees been under the compensation
act, the beneficiaries would have received $164,488, an average of
$1,900.57 in each case.
STATISTICS.
No real knowledge of the operation of workmen's, compensation
acts can be acquired until complete statistics have been gathered.
This is distinctly a public function, as the statistics should be gathered
as a public benefit and be open to the use of all. Some of the States
have recognized this necessity by requiring that State boards shall
compile statistics. In those which have attempted such work the
experience has been too short to reach a conclusion, but a good start
has been made. However, this commission is of the opinion that the
appropriations made in the different States have been inadequate
properly to organize statistical departments. Injustice that may
exist through the law can not be remedied until the facts are known,
and the facts can not be known until complete statistics have been
compiled. The insurance features of the law can not be worked out
properly in the absence of statistics. The commission found every-
where a demand for statistical information. The State commissions
are doing their part but are handicapped by lack of funds. This
commission has no hesitancy in reaching the conclusion that the people
of the several States are anxious to have created and maintained
well-equipped statistical departments. There are presented herewith
such statistics as the commission has been able to compile through
the courtesy of the different industrial accident boards. (See
Appendix No. 7A.)
XXVI. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS.
In conclusion, the commission found that workmen's compensation
acts, either compulsory or elective, have in a large part of the country
become the prevailing method of adjusting the financial losses in-
flicted upon workmen by industrial accidents, and that not only are
more than 5,000,000 workmen now operating under compensation
laws, but that laws going into effect during the coming year will bring
several million more workmen under this system. Even elective acts
have been so generally accepted by -employers and employees in
States where they are in force that in those instances a vast majority
of industrial accidents are covered. In those States that have had
experience under the law general satisfaction is given both to em-
ployer and employee, and the opinion is generally expressed by those
whom the commission met that such principle will soon be the ruling
doctrine throughout the country. Nevertheless, here and there an
employer was found who, owing largely to his peculiar kind of business
or his particular experience, criticizes the principle of the law. These
cases, however, were scattered and were confined as a rule to men
who had few if any accidents in their plants. Some employers had
REPORT OF COMMISSION. 59
not accepted the law for the reason that they were carrying on plans
of their own which they considered better.
While at the outset the compensation acts were not exclusive, but
were given in addition to the workmen's common-law right of action
for negligence, the tendency to make the compensation remedy the
exclusive one has grown until now the majority of the statutes
furnish an exclusive remedy, and it can be well said that the principle
of making the remedy exclusive, provided the compensation is
adequate, is now accepted by both employers and workmen as the
proper method.
The laws have improved the relation existing between the employer
and employee; they have had a marked effect upon accident preven-
tion by calling attention to the subject and exciting interest in safe-
guarding machinery and in the organization of safety committees,
and they have created a general campaign for accident prevention.
The difficulties feared by some employers and some workmen have
not, to any great extent, materialized under the actual operation of
the laws; while the commission heard some statements to the effect
that the laws lead to fraud, deception, and malingering on the part of
employees, and discrimination by employers against certain classes
of workmen, these complaints have generally come from those who
have had little or no experience under such a law, or have had so few
accidents in their establishments that their opinion can hardly be
considered against those of men at the head of establishments who
have had a large and active experience even in the short time that
the laws have been in effect. The latter class of employers generally
stated that they have found little, if any, malingering or deception;
that that can be avoided; and that the laws are easy in administra-
tion and fair in their operation. However, it is claimed by some
that there has not been sufficient experience, during the short time
that the statutes have been in force in the United States, for these
troubles to develop; that they do exist in European countries; and
that they will develop here unless the administration of the laws is
safeguarded in these respects. (See extract from Report of Massa-
chusetts Industrial Accident Board, Appendix No. 5a.)
In the States where there are industrial accident boards having
power to pass upon settlement agreements, to make rules and regu-
lations, to require the filing of receipts showing the actual payments
of compensation to the men, and having arbitrations and hearings
before them in cases of dispute, there was found no danger from fraud
or deception on the part either of the employer or the workman. In
these States the law is being fairly administered, and employees are
receiving promptly their full compensation under the law. It is
evident that the law can not be well administered except through a
board or officials charged with powers and duties similar to those of
the existing State boards.
It is the general opinion both of employers and workmen in the
States covered by this inquiry that all employments — with the possible
exception of farm labor, domestic servants, and casual employments —
should be included, and that any restricted classification is not only
unjust but leads to confusion and uncertainty.
The subject of medical attention to injured employees is one of
utmost importance. With a few exceptions, the States require that
the employer, in addition to the compensation, shall pay the medical
60 WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
bills of the injured workmen, with certain restrictions. Outside of
the State of Washington, the commission found no sentiment opposed
to tliis requirement, it being generally conceded that the workman
is not only entitled to medical treatment hi addition to his compen-
sation, but that it is to the interest of the employer and society to see
that he receives it, thereby to minimize the extent of the disability.
There has been a great deal of discussion, however, with regard to
the cost of medical service. Various methods have been suggested
and are now being worked out in different States for the purpose of
reducing this cost which amounts to a sum equal to 40 or 50 per cent
of the amount of compensation received by the workmen.
The amount of compensation has aroused considerable discussion,
and it varies from 50 to 66§ per cent of the wages of the injured
employee, with minimum and maximum weekly amounts varying in
different States, to be paid during the period of his incapacity or, as
hi some States, limited to specified periods, with definite allowances
for amputations and certain enumerated injuries. While employers,
in States paying only 50 per cent of the injured workmen's wages,
feel that their schedules are fair and are fearful of the effects of
increasing the percentage, there is not much complaint from em-
ployers in States having a higher rate of compensation. Employers
do, however, insist that the amount of compensation should" be
definite and certain, with as much uniformity between the different
States as possible, and with the statutes so drawn as to avoid uncer-
tainties and litigation with its consequent waste. There is consid-
erable sentiment among employers in favor of having the elective acts
made compulsory so that the cost will be uniform. Among working-
men the sentiment for compulsory compensation laws is practically
uniform, and the tendency of legislation is in the direction of com-
pulsory enactments. This is evidenced by the recent change in Ohio
and California from elective to compulsory acts, and by the adoption
in New York State of a compulsory act.
Litigation, so far as accidents to workmen are concerned, has been
practically eliminated in the States in which compensation acts have
been generally accepted by employers. About 2 per cent only of the
compensation cases are disputed so as to require arbitration; not
more than 10 cases out of 10,000 compensation cases have gone into
the courts. The payments of compensation to employees are prompt
and usually commence at the end of the second or third week, and
where arbitration is had, the payments are not delayed on an average
more than three or four weeks.
One of the most difficult problems, and one that has caused more
diversity of views than any other, is that of protecting the injured
workman against the insolvency of his employer. As the payments
are not usually made in lump sum but extend in some cases through
a long series of years, this is important from the standpoint of the
workman and his family. The commission found it generally accepted
by employers that the workman was entitled to as full protection in
this respect as possible. The only difference in opinion was as to the
method of protecting him or insuring him. In most States the com-
mission found the workman indifferent as to the method of protection
so long as he was properly insured against default on the part of the
employer. A strong feeling existed among employers against being
REPORT OF COMMISSION. 61
restricted in their methods of insuring. Many large employers wanted
to carry their own risks without insurance, provided they could show
that their financial condition would warrant it, claiming that in that
way they could better carry on their safety plans. Employers,
generally, objected to being confined to any particular class of insur-
ance. Some wanted power to create mutual insurance companies
and, in most States, laws have been passed permitting this; others
desired permission to insure in stock companies; while others wanted
the State to create an insurance fund by assessment upon employers.
There was found no great objection among employers to either of
these three forms of insurance, provided the employer is not restricted
to any one method but is given the option of procuring his insurance
through either one of them. In States in which either of these
methods, or all of them, were in operation, there was little, if any,
complaint as to the methods of making settlements or payments. It
was generally felt that, with an industrial accident board passing
upon all settlements and determining all differences and with such
other restrictions and regulations as might be necessary, both em-
ployer and employee were protected under these three methods of
insurance, and that the employer received the benefit of the compe-
tition resulting between them. The mutual companies have un-
doubtedly, by their competition, aided in the reduction of rates to a
larger extent than the amount of their business would indicate, as
they furnish a field to which employers can go in case they feel that
the rates of stock companies are too high. This is also true of the
State insurance funds, except that they have been organized to a
less extent and have done a smaller business than the -mutual
companies.
Respectfully submitted.
CYRUS W. PHILLIPS, Chairman,
J. WALTER LORD,
OTTO M. EIDLITZ,
Louis B. SCHRAM,
JAMES DUNCAN,
JOHN MITCHELL,
Commission to Study Operation of
State Workmen 's Compensation Laws.
JANUARY 15, 1914.
APPENDIX.
No. 1. DIGEST OF PRINCIPAL PROVISIONS OF STATUTES IN FORCE
JANUARY 1, 1914.
(l) ELECTION — HOW MADE.
Arizona. — Elective with respect to nonhazardous employments only.
(Compulsory on employers engaged in enumerated hazardous
employments.) Election made by agreement between em-
ployer and employee.
Connecticut. — Contracts of employment conclusively presumed to in-
clude mutual agreement between employer and employee to
accept unless contract contains written stipulation to the
contrary, or unless a written or printed notice indicating a
refusal to accept the act is made by one party to the other
and to the compensation commissioner of the district in
which the employee is employed.
Illinois. — Acceptance is presumed as to certain classes of employers
enumerated in the statute in the absence of a notice to the
contrary posted in place of business and filed with the
industrial board. As to all other employers, an affirmative
election to accept the act must be made by notice of such
election filed with the industrial board. All employees of
employers who have accepted the act are presumed to have
made a similar election, unless within 30 days after em-
ployment or acceptance by employer such employee files
notice of nonacceptance with the industrial board, which in
turn notifies the employer of his employee's nonacceptance.
Iowa. — Acceptance of the act is conclusively presumed on the part of
employers in the absence of a notice posted in a conspicuous
place and filed with the industrial commissioner. Employees
of such employers are presumed to have accepted in the
absence of notice served upon employer and industrial
commissioner.
Kansas. — Election by employer to accept presumed in absence of
notice thereof posted on the premises of the employer and
filed with the secretary of state. Every employee of an
employer who has not rejected the act is presumed to have
accepted it unless he files with the secretary of state before
injury a written declaration of the intent not to accept.
Maryland. — By contract in writing between employer and employee.
Massachusetts. — On part of employer, by becoming a subscriber
either to trie Employees' Mutual Insurance Association
created by the act or insuring in an authorized liability
insurance company, and giving written or printed notice to
employees of such fact, and filing duplicate with the in-
dustrial board. The employee of an employer who has
63
64 WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
accepted the act is presumed to have accepted it unless
written notice to the contrary has been given by him to
the employer either (1) at the time of hiring or (2) within
30 days after the employer's acceptance, if such acceptance
be subsequent to date of hiring.
Michigan.— On the part of employers, by filing with the industrial
accident board written acceptance, stating method pro-
posed for payment of compensation; which, however, does
not become effective until approved by that board. Must,
within 10 days after approval, post notice of acceptance of
act . Acceptance binding for one year and for each successive
year, but employer may withdraw such acceptance as of
the expiration of any yeai by filing notice with board at
least 30 days prior to expiration of such year. Employee
must give employer notice in writing of election not to be
subject to provisions of act within 30 days after acceptance
by employer, or, where he enters employment after accept-
ance by the employer, he must give notice in writing at that
time that he elects not to be subject to the provisions of the
act. Employee may subsequently waive such notice of non-
acceptance by a statement in writing, which takes effect
five days after it is submitted to the employer.
Minnesota. — On part of employers: Election to come under compen-
sation features of the act is presumed in the absence of
affirmative election to the contrary, by written notice posted
in place of business and duplicate thereof filed with labor
commissioner.
On part of employees: Election to accept compensation
under the provisions of the act is presumed in the absence
of affirmative election to the contrary, by written notice to
employer and duplicate, with proof of service, filed with
labor commissioner.
Nebraska. — Employ ei's acceptance of act presumed unless otherwise
expressly stated in the contract of employment, or unless
notice to the contrary be posted in the place of business and
filed with the insurance commissioner. Employees of one
accepting the act presumed to accept unless notice ot rejec-
tion is served upon employer and filed with insurance com-
missioner.
Nevada. — Every employer covered by the act is conclusively pre-
sumed to have elected the compensation provisions of the
act, in the absence of affirmative election to the contrary,
by written notice posted in the place of business and filed
with the commission.
All employees affected by the act are conclusively pre-
sumed to have elected to take compensation in accordance
with the terms of the act, in the absence of written notice
served upon the employer and file;! with the commission.
New Hampshire. — By employer filing notice with commissioner of
labor and either filing bond for payment of compensation
or receiving certificate from commission of labor as to his
financial responsibility. Election by employee is not made
until after injury and then by his election to accept com-
pensation in lieu of right of action for damages as it existed
prior to the act.
DIGEST OF STATE LAWS. 65
New Jersey. — Employer's election presumed in absence of written
notice to employee or expressed in a provision in the con-
tract in hiring. Employee's acceptance, where employer
has accepted the act, is presumed in absence of written
notice to the employer or stipulation in contract of hiring to
the contrary.
Oregon. — Employer's acceptance presumed in the absence of a written
notice to the contrary filed with State industrial accident
commission. Acceptance by employee of an employer who
has not rejected the act, presumed unless notice to the con-
trary is given the employer at the time of hiring or within
15 days after recall by employer of his own nonacceptance.
Rhode Island. — On the part of the employer by filing with the com-
missioner of industrial statistics a written acceptance of
the provisions of the act, and by giving reasonable notice
to his workmen by posting copies of such statement in con-
spicuous places about the places where the workmen are
employed. Acceptance binding for one year and sucessive
years, subject to cancellation as of expiration, of any year
upon 60 days' notice as provided in case of acceptance.
An employee of an employer who has elected to accept
the act is bound by the same unless he gives notice to the
employer and files a copy with the commissioner of industrial
statistics, which acceptance can be revoked by the employee
by] filing with the commissioner a notice, at least 60 days
prior to the expiration of the first or any succeeding year
and giving notice of the same to his employer.
Minors shall be deemed sui juris for the purpose of the
act; but if a minor has a parent or guardian, such parent
or guardian may give notice. In the absence of notice
the minor employee is bound by the act.
Texas. — By the employer by becoming a subscriber to the Texas
Employees Insurance Association or insuring his employees
under the compensation act in some stock company author-
ized to do business in the State. The employer's election is
binding upon all his employees.
Washington. — Any employer and his employees engaged in works not
specified as extra hazardous may, by their joint election, filed
with the department, accept the provisions of this act,
otherwise the act is compulsory.
West Virginia. — By the employer's electing to pay premiums into
the State workmen's compensation fund and posting notices
in conspicuous places about his place of business. Em-
ployees remaining in their employment after such notice
are bound by it.
Wisconsin. — Every employer with more than four employees is pre-
sumed to have accepted the act unless he files with the
industrial commission a statement to the contrary. Other
employers must make an affirmative election and file a
statement of same with the industrial commission. Em-
ployees of an employer subject to the compensation pro-
visions of the act are bound by same unless they serve
notice of rejection to employer, either (1) at time of hiring,
or (2) within 30 days after the employer's acceptance, if
such acceptance be subsequent to date of hiring.
30003— S. Doc. 419, 63-2 5
66 WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
EMPLOYMENTS COVERED.
Arizona. — The operation of steam railroads, electrical railroads,
street railroads, by locomotives, engines, trains, motors, or
cars of any kind propelled by steam, electricity, cable, or
other mechanical power, including the construction, use, or
repair of machinery, plant, tracks, switches, bridges, road-
beds, upon, over, and by which such railway business is
operated. All work when making, using, or ^necessitating
dangerous proximity to gunpowder, blasting powder, dyna-
mite, compressed air, or any other explosives. The erection
or demolition of any bridge, building, or structure in which
there is, or in which the plans and specifications require
iron or steel framework. The operation of all elevators,
elevating machinery, or derricks, or hoisting apparatus used
within or on the outside of any bridge, building, or other
structure for conveying materials in connection with the
erection or demolition of such bridge, building, or structure.
All work on ladders or scaffolds of any kind elevated 20 feet
or more above the ground or floor beneath in the erection,
construction, repair, painting, or alteration of any building,
bridge, structure, or other work in which the same are used.
All work of construction, operation, or repair where wires,
cables, switchboards, or other apparatus or machinery are
in use charged with electrical current. All work in the
construction, alteration, or repair of pole lines for telegraph,
telephone, or other purposes. All. work in mines and all
work in quarries. All work in the construction and repair
of tunnels, subways, and viaducts. All work in mills, shops,
works, yards, plants, and factories where steam, electricity,
or any other mechanical power is used to operate machinery
and appliances in and about such premises.
California. — All employments in the ordinary course of the trade,
business, profession, or occupation of the employer, except
farm labor, domestic service, and casual employments, and
employments in interstate commerce not subject to legis-
lative power of State.
Connecticut. — All employments by an employer having regularly
five or more employees, except casual employees and out-
workers.
Illinois. — All employments by the State or any of its governmental
agencies, or by any person, firm, or corporation, including
public service, religious, or charitable corporations or asso-
ciations, who has any person in service or under any contract
for hire, but excluding casual employments and those not in
the usual course of the trade, business, profession, or occu-
pation of the employer.
Iowa. — All employments, except farm laborers or other laborers
engaged in agricultural pursuits, household or domestic
servants, or casual employees.
Kansas. — Only employments in the course of the employer's trade or
business on, in, or about a railway, factory, mine, or quarry;
electric, building, or engineering work; laundry, natural-gas
DIGEST OF STATE LAWS. 67
plant, county and municipal work, and all employments
wherein a process requiring the use of any dangerous
explosive or inflammable materials is carried on which is
conducted for the purpose of business, trade, or gain; each
of which employments is hereby determined to be especially
dangerous in which, from the nature, conditions, or means
of prosecution of the work therein, extraordinary risk to the
life and limb of the workman engaged therein are inherent,
necessary, or substantially unavoidable, and as to each of
which employments it is deemed necessary to establish a new
system of compensation for injuries to workmen. This act
shall not apply in any case where the accident occurred
before this act takes effect, and all rights which have
accrued by reason of any such accident, at the time of the
publication of this act, shall be saved the remedies now ex-
isting therefor, and the court shall have the same power as to
them as if this act had not been enacted. Agricultural
pursuits and employments incident thereto are' hereby
declared to be nonhazardous and exempt from the pro-
visions of this act.
It is hereby determined that the necessity for this law
and the reason for its enactment, exist only with regard to
employers who employ a considerable number of persons.
This act, therefore, shall only apply to employers by whom
five or more workmen have been (employed) continuously
for more than one month at the time of the accident ; pro-
vided, however, that employers having less than five work-
men may elect to come- within the provisions of this act, in
which case his employees shall be included herein, as herein-
after provided; and provided further, that this act shall
apply to mines without regard to number of workmen
employed.
Maryland. — All employments.
Massachusetts. — All, except casual employments and those not in the
usual course of trade, business, profession, or occupation of
the employer, and excepting employments such as masters
or seamen of vessels engaged in interstate or foreign com-
merce. The statute expressly provides that the provisions
of section 1, removing defenses, shall not apply to actions to
recover damages for personal injuries sustained by domestic
servants and farm laborers. However, the parties involved
in these employments may elect to accept the compensation
provisions of the act.
Michigan. — All employments, except household, domestic servants
and farm laborers.
Minnesota. — All employments except farm labor, domestic service,
casual employment, employment not in the usual course of
business of the employer, and interstate employment on
railroads.
Nebraska. — All employments in which five or more persons are en-
gaged in employer's regular business excepting farm labor,
domestic service, outworking, casual employment, and inter-
state employment on railroads. In excepted employments
68 WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
the employer and employee may jointly agree to accept the
act.
Nevada. — All employers who employ two or more persons in the same
employment in the usual and ordinary transaction of busi-
ness except employers of domestic servants and farm laborers.
New Hampshire. — (a) The operation on steam or electric railroads of
locomotives, engines, trains, or cars, or the construction,
alteration, maintenance, or repair of steam railroad tracks
or roadbeds over which such locomotives, engines, trains,
or cars are, or are to be, operated. (6) Work in any shop,
mill, factory, or other place on, in connection with, or in
proximity to any hoisting apparatus, or any machinery pro-
pelled or operated by steam or other mechanical power in
which shop, mill, factory, or other place five or more persons
are engaged in manual or mechanical labor, (c) The con-
struction, operation, alteration, or repair of wires or lines of
wires, cables, switchboards, or apparatus charged with elec-
• trie currents, (d) All work necessitating dangerous prox-
imity to gunpowder, blasting powder, dynamite, or any other
explosives, where the same are used as instrumentalities of
the industry, or to any steam boiler owned or operated by
the employer; provided, injury is occasioned by the explo-
sion of any sucn boiler or explosive, (e) Work in or about
any quarry, mine, or foundry. As to each of said employ-
ments it is deemed necessary to establish a new system of
compensation for accidents to workmen.
New Jersey. — Any employment by any person, partnership, or cor-
poration, including State, county, municipality, or any other
governing body except casual employments.
New York. — Group 1. The operation, including construction and
repair of railways operated by steam, electric, or other
motive power, street railways, and incline railways, but not
their construction when constructed by any person other
than the company which owns or operates the railway, in-
cluding work of express, sleeping, parlor, and dining car
employees on railway trains.
Group 2. Construction and operation of railways not in-
cluded in group 1.
Group 3. The operation, including construction and repair,
of car shops, machine shops, steam and power plants, and
other works for the purposes of any such railway, or used
or to be used in connection with it when operated, con-
structed, or repaired by the company which owns or operates
the railway.
Group 4. The operation, including construction and repair,
of car shops, machine shops, steam and power plants, not
included in group 3.
Group 5. The operation, including construction and repair,
of telephone lines and wires for the purposes of the business
of a telephone company, or used or to be used in connection
with its business, when constructed or operated by the
company.
Group 6. The operation, including construction and repair,
of telegraph lines and wires for the purposes of the business
DIGEST OF STATE LAWS. 69
of a telegraph company, or used or to be used in connection
with its business, when constructed or operated by the
company.
Group 7. Construction of telegraph and telephone lines
not included in groups 5 and 6.
Group 8. The operation, within or without the State,
including repair, of vessels other than vessels of other States
or countries used in interstate or foreign commerce, when
operated or repaired by the company.
Group 9. Shipbuilding, including construction and repair
in a shipyard or elsewhere, not included in group 8.
Group 10. Longshore work, including the loading or un-
loading of cargoes or parts of cargoes of grain, coal, ore,
freight, general merchandise, lumber, or other products or
materials, or moving or handling the same o any dock,
platform, or place, or in any warehouse or other place of
storage.
Group 11. Dredging, subaqueous or caisson construction,
and pile driving.
Group 12. Construction, installation, or operation of elec-
tric light and electric power lines, dynamos, or appliances,
and power transmission lines.
Group 13. Paving; sewer and subway construction, work
under compressed air, excavation, tunneling and shaft sink-
ing, well digging, laying and repair of underground pipes,
cables, and wires, not included in other groups.
Group 14. Lumbering; logging, river driving, rafting,
booming, sawmills, shingle mills, lath mills, manufacture of
veneer and of excelsior; manufacture of staves, spokes, or
headings.
Group 15. Pulp and paper mills.
Group 16. Manufacture of furniture, interior woodwork,
organs, pianos, piano actions, canoes, small boats, coffins,
wicker and rattan ware; upholstering; manufacture of mat-
tresses or bed springs.
Group 17. Planing mills, sash and door factories, manu-
facture of wooden and corrugated paper boxes, cheese boxes,
moldings, window and door screens, window shades, carpet
sweepers, wooden toys, articles and wares, or baskets.
Group 18. Mining; reduction of ores and smelting prepa-
ration of metals or minerals.
Group 19. Quarries; sand, shale, clay, or gravel pits, lime-
kilns; manufacture of brick, tile, terra cotta, fireproofing, or
paving blocks, manufacture of calcium carbide, cement,
asphalt, or paving material.
Group 20. Manufacture of glass, glass products, glassware,
porcelain, or pottery.
Group 21. Iron, steel, or metal foundries; rolling mills;
manufacture of castings, forgings, heavy engines, locomo-
tives, machinery, safes, anchors, cables, rails, shafting, wires,
tubing, pipes, sheet metal, boilers, furnaces, stoves, struc-
tural steel, iron, or metal.
Group 22. Operation and repair of stationary engines and
boilers, not included in other groups.
70 WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
Group 23. Manufacture of small castings or forgings,
metal wares, instruments, utensils, and articles, hardware,
nails, wire goods, screens, bolts, metal beds, sanitary, water,
gas, or electric fixtures, light machines, typewriters, cash
registers, adding machines, carriage mountings, bicycles,
metal toys, tools, cutlery, instruments, photographic cam-
eras and supplies, sheet-metal products, buttons.
Group 24. Manufacture of agricultural implements,
thrashing machines, traction engines, wagons, carriages,
sleighs, vehicles, automobiles, motor trucks, toy wagons,
sleighs, or baby carriages.
Group 25. Manufacture of explosives and dangerous
chemicals, corrosive acids or salts, ammonia, gasoline, petro-
leum, petroleum products, celluloid, gas, charcoal, artificial
ice, gun powder, or ammunition.
Group 26. Manufacture of paint, color, varnish, oil,
japans, turpentine, printing ink, printers' rollers, tar,
tarred, pitched, or asphalted paper.
Group 27. Distilleries, breweries; manufacture of spirit-
uous or malt liquors, alcohol, wine, mineral water, or soda
waters.
Group 28. Manufacture of drugs and chemicals, not spec-
ified in group 25, medicines, dyes, extracts, pharmaceutical
or toilet preparations, soaps, candles, perfumes, noncorro-
sive acids or chemical preparations, fertilizers, including
garbage-disposal plants; shoe blacking or polish.
Group 29. Milling; manufacture of cereals or cattle foods,
warehousing; storage; operation of grain elevators.
Group 30. Packing houses, abattoirs, manufacture or
preparation of meats or meat products or glue.
Group 31. Tanneries.
Group 32. Manufacture of leather goods and products,
belting, saddlery, harness, trunks, valises, boots, shoes,
gloves, umbrellas, rubber goods, rubber shoes, tubing, tires,
or hose.
Group 33. Canning or preparation of fruit, vegetables,
fish or foodstuffs; pickle factories and sugar refineries.
Group 34. Bakeries, including manufacture of crackers
and biscuits, manufacture of confectionery, spices, or condi-
ments.
Group 35. Manufacture of tobacco, cigars, cigarettes, or
tobacco products.
Group 36. Manufacture of cordage, ropes, fiber, brooms
or brushes; manilla or hemp products.
Group 37. Flak mills; manufacture of textiles or fabrics,
spinning, weaving, and knitting manufactories; manufac-
ture of yarn, thread, hosiery, cloth, blankets, carpets, can-
vas, bags, shoddy, or felt.
Group 38. Manufacture of men's or women's clothing,
white wear shirts, collars, corsets, hats, caps, furs, or robes.
Group 39. Power laundries ; dyeing, cleaning, or bleaching.
Group 40. Printing, photo-engraving, stereotyping, elec-
tro typing, lithographing, embossing; manufacture of sta-
tionery, paper, cardboard boxes, bags, or wall paper; and
book binding.
DIGEST OF STATE LAWS. 71
Group 41. The operation, otherwise than on tracks, on
streets, highways, or elsewhere of cars, trucks, wagons, or
other vehicles, and rollers and engines, propelled by steam,
gas, gasoline, electric, mechanical, or other power or drawn
by horses or mules.
Group 42. Stone cutting or dressing; marble works; man-
ufacture of artificial stone; steel building and bridge con-
struction; installation of elevators, fire escapes, boilers,
engines or heavy machinery; bricklaying, tile laying, mason
work, stone setting, concrete w^ork, plastering; and manu-
facture of concrete blocks; structural carpentry; painting,
decorating, or renovating; sheet-metal work; roofing; con-
struction, repair, and demolition of buildings and bridges;
plumbing, sanitary, or heating engineering; installation and
covering of pipes or boilers.
Ohio. — Every person, firm, and corporation, employing five or more
workmen regularly in the same business.
Oregon. — The hazardous occupations to which the act is 'applicable
are: Factories, mills, and workshops where machinery is
used; printing, electro typing, photo-engraving, .and stero-
typing plants where machinery is used; factories, glass fur-
naces, mines, wells, gas works, waterworks, reduction works,
derricks, elevators, wharves, docks, dredges, smelters,
powder works, laundries operated by power, quarries, en-
gineering works; logging, lumbering, and shipbuilding; log-
ging, street, and interurban railroads not engaged in inter-
state commerce; buildings being constructed, ^ repaired,
moved, or demolished; telegraph, telephone, electric light or
power plants or lines; steam heating or power plants; steam-
boats, docks, and ferries.
Rhode Island. — All employments except domestic service, agricul-
ture, casual employments, and those not for the purpose of
the employer's trade or business. The provision of the act
removing defenses does not apply to employers who em-
ploy five or less operators regularly in the same business,
though such employers may elect to become subject to the
provisions of the act. Employees whose yearly wages ex-
ceed $1,800 are not covered.
Texas. — All employments except domestic service, farm labor, em-
ployment by a railway, employment in a cotton gin, em-
ployment by an employer of not more than five employees,
casual employments and those not in the usual course of the
trade, business, profession, or occupation of the employer.
Washington. — Factories, mills, and workshops where machinery is
used; printing, electro typing, photo-engraving, and stereo-
typing plants where machinery is used; foundries, blast fur-
naces, mines, wells, gas works, waterworks, reduction works,
breweries, elevators, wharves, docks, dredges, smelters,
powder works; laundries operated by power; quarries; en-
gineering works; logging, lumbering, and shipbuilding oper-
tions; logging, street, and interurban railroads; buildings
being constructed, repaired, moved, or demolished ; telegraph,
telephone, electric light or power plants or lines; steam heat-
ing or power plants, steamboats, tugs, ferries, and railroads.
72 WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
West Virginia. — All persons, firms, and corporations regularly em-
ploying other persons for profit. All persons except casual
employees in the service of such employers, and employed
by them for the purpose of carrying on the industries in
which they are engaged, except employers of employees in
domestic or agricultural service, and employees of any em-
ployer who are employed wholly without the State, and
members of a firm of employers or officers of a corporation
employer, including managers, superintendents, and as-
sistant managers and assistant superintendents. All em-
ployments conducted for employer's profit, excepting farm
labor, domestic service, casual employment, and employ-
ment wholly without the State.
Wisconsin. — All employments except casual employments and those
not in the usual course of trade or business of the employer.
INJURIES COVERED.
Arizona. — Personal injuries, by accident, arising out of and in the
course of labor, service, or employment, caused in whole or
in part or contributed to by a necessary risk or danger of
such employment, or a necessary risk or danger inherent
in the nature thereof, or by failure of the employer of any
of his officers, agents, or employees to comply with any law.
California. — Personal injuries, sustained by accident, arising out of
and in the course of employment, unless due to intoxication
or willful misconduct.
Connecticut. — Injuries arising out of and in the course of employ-
ment, except when due to willful and serious misconduct or
intoxication.
Illinois. — Accidental injuries, arising out of and in the course of
employment.
Iowa. — Personal injuries, arising out of and in the course of employ-
ment, unless due to intoxication or to willful intention to
inj ure self or another.
Kansas. — Personal injuries, by accident, arising out of and in the
course of employment, unless due to deliberate intention
to cause such injury or to willful failure to use a guard or
protection against accident, or to deliberate breach of
safety law, or to intoxication.
Maryland. — Personal injuries, by accident, arising out of and in the
course of employment, unless due to intoxication or willful
intention to produce such injury.
Massachusetts. — Personal injuries arising out of and in the course
of employment, unless due to serious and willful misconduct.
Michigan. — Personal injury arising out of and in the course of em-
ployment, except where employee is injured by reason of his
intentional and willful misconduct.
Minnesota. — Personal injuries, by accident, arising out of and in the
course of employment, except those intentionally self-
inflicted or due to intoxication.
Nebraska. — Personal injuries, by accident, arising out of and in the
course of employment, unless due to willful negligence.
DIGEST OF STATE LAWS. 73
Nevada. — Personal injuries, arising out of and in the course of em-
ployment, except when caused by willful intention of
employee to injure himself or another or where an, injury is
sustained while the employee is intoxicated.
New Hampshire. — Any injury arising out of and in the course of
their employment, except when caused by intoxication,
violation of law, or serious or willful misconduct.
New Jersey. — Personal injuries, by accident, arising out of and in
the course of employment, unless caused by willful negligence
which consists of either a deliberate act or a deliberate
failure to act, or reckless indifference to safety or intoxica-
tion.
New York. — Accidental injuries, arising out of and in the course of
employment and such disease or infection as may naturally
and unavoidably result therefrom, except when injury is
due to intoxication while on duty or to willful intention to
injure self or another.
Ohio. — Every injury suffered in the course of employment and not
purposely self-inflicted.
Oregon. —Personal injuries, by accident, arising out of and in the
course of employment, unless casued by deliberate inten-
tion.
Rhode Island. — Personal injuries by accident arising out of and in the
course of employment, except when occasioned by willful
intention to injure self or another, or when resulting from
intoxication while on duty.
Texas. — Personal injuries sustained in the course of employment.
Washington. — Personal injuries sustained while upon the premises
or at the plant of the employer, and while away from the
plant of the employer, if in the course of employment, unless
deliberately self-inflicted.
West Virginia. — Personal injuries in the course of and resulting from
employment unless self-inflicted or due to willful mis-
conduct or intoxication.
Wisconsin. — Personal injuries, accidentally sustained in performing
services, growing out of and incidental to employment, if
injury caused by the accident and not intentionally self-
inflicted.
MEDICAL AND SURGICAL AID.
Arizona. — No medical and surgical aid, except that personal repre-
sentative is authorized in case of death to pay out of the
compensation fund for reasonable medical attendance and
burial of the decedent.
California.— Employer must furnish reasonable medical, surgical, and
hospital treatment for a period not exceeding 90 days. If
the employer neglects or refuses seasonably so to do, he will
be liable for the reasonable expenses incurred by the em-
ployee in providing the same.
Connecticut. — Employer must furnish reasonable medical and surgical
aid during the 30 days immediately following the injury,
but the injured employee may, at his option, refuse suet aid
74 WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
and provide the same at his own expense ; or if the employer
fails to provide such aid promptly, the injured employee
may do so at the expense of the employer. If injured
employee refuses to accept or fails to provide such medical
and surgical aid, all rights of compensation are suspended
during such refusal and failure.
Illinois. — The employer shall provide necessary first aid, medical,
surgical, and hospital services for a period not longer than
eight weeks, not to exceed, however, more than $200. The
employee may elect to secure his own physician, surgical, or
hospital services at his own expense.
Iowa. — At any time during the first two weeks of incapacity an
employer that is requested by the workman, or anyone for
him, or if so ordered by the Iowa industrial commission,
shall furnish reasonable surgical, medical, and hospital serv-
ices, the amount not to exceed $100.
Kansas. — No medical and surgical aid, except that in case of death
without dependents the employer must pay reasonable
expense for medical attendance and burial services, not to
exceed in value $100.
Maryland. — No medical and surgical aid, except that in case of death
without dependents the employer must pay medical and
burial expenses not less than $75 nor more than $100.
Massachusetts. — Reasonable medical and hospital services, and medi-
cines, when needed, during the first two weeks after injury.
Michigan. — During three weoks after injury employer shall furnish
or cause to be furnished reasonable medical and hospital
services and medcines.
Minnesota. — Employer must furnish such medical and surgical treat-
ment and supplies, as may reasonably be required during a
maximum period of 90 days. If employer is unable or re-
fuses to furnish such services he will be liable up to a maxi-
mum of $100. If necessary, court may require employer
to furnish additional service after the 90 days period, with a
total maximum of $200.
Nebraska. — Employer must furnish reasonable medical aid during the
first 21 days after disability but not to exceed the amount
of $200. Employer relieved from paying compensation for
any aggravation of injury due to employee's refusal to ac-
cept medical aid.
Nevada. — No medical and surgical aid.
New Hampshire. — No medical and surgical aid except that in case of
death without dependents, employer must pay for medical
services and expenses of burial, the amount not to exceed
$100.
New Jersey. — During the first two weeks after the injury the em-
ployer shall furnish reasonable medical and hospital services
and medicines, as and when needed, not to exceed $50 in
value, unless the employee refuses to allow them to be fur-
nished by the employer.
New York. — The employer shall promptly provide for the injured
employee such medical, surgical, or other attendance, or
nurse, hospital services, medicines, crutches, and apparatus
as may be required, or be requested by the employee within
DIGEST OF STATE LAWS. 75
60 days after the injury. If the employer fails to provide
the same, the injured employee may do so at the expense of
the employer. All fees and other charges for such treat-
ments and. services shall be subject to regulation by the
commission.
Oliio. — The State liability board of awards shall disburse and pay
from the State insurance fund such amounts for medical,
nurse, and hospital services and medicines as it may deem
proper, not to exceed the sum of $200. The board shall
have full power to adopt rules and regulations with respect
to furnishing medical, nurse, and hospital services and medi-
cines to injured employees entitled thereto.
Oregon. — The commission shall have authority to provide under uni-
form rules and regulations, first aid to workmen who are
entitled to benefits hereunder, together with medical and
surgical attendance and hospital accommodations, the
amount not to exceed $250 in any one case.
RJwde Island. — During the first two weeks of injury employer shall
furnish reasonable medical and hospital services and medi-
cines when they are needed; amount of the charges for such
services to be fixed, in case of failure to agree, by the superior
court.
Texas. — During the first week of injury the association shall furnish
reasonable medical and surgical aid when needed, and if it
does not furnish these immediately as and when needed, it
shall repay all sums reasonably paid or incurred for same,
provided that reasonable notice of injury be given to the
association.
Washington. — No medical aid.
West Virginia. — The commission shall pay for such medical and hos-
pital services as it may deem proper, with a maximum of
$150, except where injured employee is entitled to the same
through some contract connected with his employment or
otherwise.
Wisconsin.— Employer must furnish such medical aid, including
crutches and apparatus, as required at time of injury and
thereafter during a period of not to exceed 90 days ; in case
of employer's neglect or refusal he shall be liable for rea-
sonable expense therefor incurred by employee.
WAITING PERIOD.
Arizona. — First two weeks after accident; but if accident results in
total incapacity for more than two weeks, then the com-
pensation commences from the date of the accident.
California. — First two weeks.
Connecticut. — First two weeks.
Illinois. — First six days except where Incapacity is permanent, in
which case there is no waiting period.
Iowa. — First two weeks.
Kansas. — First two weeks.
Maryland. — First week.
Massachusetts. — First two weeks.
76 WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
Michigan. — First two weeks. If disability continues for eight weeks
or longer, compensation then payable from date of injury.
Minnesota. — First two weeks.
Nebraska. — First two weeks. If disability continues eight weeks
or longer, compensation then payable from date of injury.
Nevada. — First two weeks. If disability continues for eight weeks
or longer, compensation then payable from date of injury.
New Hampshire. — First two weeks.
New Jersey. — First two weeks.
New York. — First two weeks.
Ohio. — First week.
Oregon. — No waiting period.
Rhode Island. — First two weeks.
Texas. — First week.
Washington. — No waiting period.
West Virginia. — First week.
Wisconsin. — First week. If disability continues for more than four
weeks, compensation then payable from date of injury.
AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION — TOTAL DISABILITY.
Arizona. — Fifty per cent of the workman's average earnings when
at full work on full time, during the preceding year ; to con-
tinue as long as incapacity continues, but in no case to
exceed the sum of $4,000.
California. — When disability is temporary but total, compensation
is 65 per cent of average weekly earnings during the period
of such disability; but the aggregate indemnity for a single
injury must not exceed three times the average annual earn-
ings, nor must the period extend beyond 240 weeks from the
date of accident.
Where the disability is total and permanent, compensa-
tion is 65 per cent of the average weekly earnings for a period
of 240 weeks, and thereafter 40 per cent of such earnings
during the remainder of life.
Loss of both eyes or the sight thereof, loss of both hands
or the use thereof, an injury resulting in a practically total
paralvsis or an injury to the brain resulting in incurable
imbecility or insanity are considered as total permanent
disability.
Connecticut. — In case the injury results in total incapacity to perform
work of any character, there shall be paid to the injured
employee a weekly compensation equal to half of his average
weekly earnings at the time of the injury; but the compen-
sation shall in no case be mere than $10 or less than $5
weekly; and such compensation shall not continue longer
than the period of total incapacity, or in any event longer
than 520 weeks. The following injuries of any person shall
be considered as causing total incapacity and compensation
shall be paid accordingly: (a) Total and permanent loss of
sight in both eyes; (6) the loss of both feet at or above the
ankle; (c) the loss of both hands at or above the wrist;
(d) the loss of one foot at or above the ankle and one hand
DIGEST OF STATE LAWS. 77
at or above the wrist; (e) any injury resulting in permanent
and complete paralysis of the legs or arms or of one leg and
one arm; (/) any injury resulting in incurable imbecility or
insanity.
Illinois. — If disability is temporary but total, compensation equal to
one-half the earnings, but not less than $5 nor more than
$12 per week, to continue during disability, but not after
the amount of compensation paid equals four times the
average annual earnings, or $3,500. Where disability is
total and permanent, compensation equal to 50 per cent of
earnings, but not less than $5 nor more than $12 per week,
commencing on the day after injury and continuing until the
amount paid equals four times the average annual earnings,
or $3,500, and thereafter an annual pension during life equal
to 8 per cent of the latter amount, such pension to be not
less than $10 per month and to be payable monthly.
Iowa. — fror injury producing temporary disability, 50 per cent of the
average weekly wages received at the time of the injury;
subject to a maximum of $10 per week and a minimum of
$5 per week; provided that if, at the time of the injury, the
employee receives wages of less than $5 per week, then he
shall receive the full amount of wages per week. The com-
pensation shall be paid during the period of such disability,
not, however, beyond 300 weeks. For permanent total
disability, same scale of compensation, subject to maximum
duration of 400 weeks.
Kansas. — Where disability is total, compensation shall be in peri-
odical payments during disabilit}^, equal to 50 per cent aver-
age weekly wages, subject to a maximum of $15 and a mini-
mum of $6 per week, for not to exceed eight years.
Maryland. — A weekly payment during the period of such disability,
but not to be less than 50 per cent of the average weekly
wages during the previous 12 months. Total disability shall
be deemed to be inability to carry on any gainful occupa-
tion. The loss, by actual separation at or above the wrist
or ankle, of both hands or both feet, or of one hand and one
foot, or the irrevocable loss of both eyes, shall be deemed to
be equal to total disability.
Massachusetts. — A weekly compensation equal to one-half average
weekly wages; maximum, $10; minimum, $4 per week, for
not exceeding 500 weeks and an amount of $3,000.
Michigan. — A weekly compensation equal to one-half average weekly
wages; maximum $10, and minimum $4. Period limited
to 500 weeks; compensation not to exceed $4,000. Loss of
both hands, or both arms, or both feet, or both legs, or both
eyes, or of any two thereof constitute total and permanent
disability.
Minnesota. — For permanent total disability, 50 per cent of the weekly
wages, subject to a maximum of $10 per week and a mini-
mum of $6 per week, during a period not to exceed 400
weeks; with a proviso that where the weekly wage is less
than $6 per week the injured person shall receive the full
wages. Loss of both hands, both arms, both feet, both leg&;
78 WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
both eyes, or any two thereof, or total loss of mental facuV
ties, or complete paralysis of both legs, or both arms, shall
constitute total disability.
Nebraska. — For the first 300 weeks of total disability, 50 per cent
of the wages received at the time of injury, with a maxi-
mum of $10 per week and a minimum of $5 per week; pro-
vided that if, at the time of injury, the employee receives
wages of less than $5 per week then he shall receive the full
amount of such weekly wages as compensation. After the
first 300 weeks of total disability,, for the remainder of the
life of the employee, but not to extend beyond the period
of disability, 40 per cent of the wages received at the
time of the injury; with a maximum of $8 per week and a
minimum of $4 per week; provided that if, at the time of
the injury, the employee receives wages of less than $4 per
week, then he shall receive the full amount of such wages
as compensation.
Nevada. - Compensation for complete disability is 50 per cent of
average monthly wages, subject to a maximum of $60 and
a minimum of $20 per month, and a maximum period of
100 months; the total amount not to exceed $5,000. Loss
of both hands, or both arms, or both legs, or both feet, or
both eyes, or any two thereof, shall constitute total and
permanent disability with compensation according to the
provisions for compensation for complete disability.
New Hampshire. — Fifty per cent of the average weekly earnings
when at work on full time during the preceding year, not
to exceed the damage suffered; and subject to a maximum
of $10 per week, extending through a period of not more
than 300 weeks from the date of the accident.
New Jersey. — For injury producing temporary disability, 50 per cent
of wages, subject to maximum of $10 and minimum of $5
per week, except where weekly wage less than $5, then full
wages. Maximum period of 300 weeks. For disability,
total in character and permanent in quality, 50 per cent of
the wages received at the time of injury, subject to a maxi-
mum of $10 per week and a minimum of $5 per week; with
a proviso that if at the time of the injury the employee
receives less than $5 per week he shall receive the full amount
of wages per week. The compensation shall not extend
beyond a period of 400 weeks. Loss of both hands, or both
arms, or both feet, or both legs, or both eyes, or any two
thereof, to constitute permanent total disability.
New York. — In case of temporary total disability, 66 § per cent of
the average weekly wages during the continuance of the
disability, but not in excess of $3,500. In case of total dis-
ability adjudged to be permanent, 66§ per cent of the average
weekly wages during the continuance of such total disability.
Loss of both hands, or both arms, or both feet, or both
le^s, or both eyes, or any two thereof shall, in the absence
of conclusive proof to the contrary, constitute permanent
total disability. In all other cases permanent total disa-
bility shall be determined in accordance with the facts.
DIGEST OF STATE LAWS. 79
Ohio. — Where disability is temporary but total, 66§ per cent average
weekly wages, subject to a maximum of $12 and a mini-
mum of $5 per week, except where weekly wage less than
$5, then full wages; subject also to maximum period of six
years from date of injury and maximum amount of $3,750.
Where disability is total and permanent, 66§ per cent
average weekly wages, subject to a maximum of $12 and a
minimum of $5 per week, except where weekly wage is less
than $5; then full wage to continue until death. Loss of
both hands, or both arms, or both feet, or both legs, or both
eyes, or any two thereof constitutes total disability with
compensation accordingly.
Oregon. — Tn case of permanent total disability, if unmarried at the
time of the injury, the sum of $30 per month. If the work-
man have a wile or invalid husband, but no child under the
age of 16 years, the sum of $35 per month ; if the husband is not
an invalid, the monthly payment of $35 shall be reduced to
$30. If the workman have a wife or husband, and a child or
children under the age of 16 years, or being a widow or widower
have any such child or children, the monthly payment last
described shall be increased by $6 for each such child until
such child shall arrive at the age of 16 years; subject to a
monthly payment of $50. In case of temporary total disa-
bility the above provisions for payment in case of perma-
nent total disability shall apply so long as the total disabilitj^
shall continue, increased 50 per cent for the first six months
of such continuance, but in no case shall the increase operate
to make the monthly payment exceed 60 per cent of the
monthly wage the workman is receiving at the time of his
injury.
Rhode Island. — Fifty per cent of the employee's average weekly wages,
earnings, or salary, subject to a maximum of $10 per week
and a minimum of $4 per week and limited to a period of
500 weeks from date of injury. The total and irrevocable
loss of sight in both eyes, the loss of both feet at or above
the ankle, the loss of both hands at or above the wrist, the
loss of one hand or one foot, and injury to the spine result-
ing in permanent and complete paralysis of the legs or arms,
and an injury to the skull resulting in incurable imbecility
or insanity, are conclusively presumed to constitute perma-
nent total disability.
Texas. — Compensation for total disability is 60 per cent average
weekly wages, subject to a maximum of $15 and a minimum
of $5 per week, for not to exceed 400 weeks.
Washington. — Permanent total disability means the loss of both legs
or both arms, or one leg and one arm, total loss of eyesight,
paralysis or other condition permanenetly incapacitating
the workman from performing any work at any gainful occu-
pation. When permanent total disability results from the
injury the workman shall receive monthly during the period
of such disability: If unmarried at the time of the injury,
the sum of $20. If the workman have a wife or invalid hus-
band, but no child under the age of 16 years, the sum of $25.
80 WOKKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
If the husband u not an invalid, the monthly payment of $25
shall be reduced to $15. If the workman have a wife or hus-
band and a child or children under the age of 16 years, or,
being a widow or widower, have any such child or children,
the monthly payment provided in the preceding paragraph
shall -be increased by $5 for each such child until such child
shall arrive at the age of 16 years, but the total monthly
payment shall not exceed $35. If the injured workman
die during the period of total disability, whatever the cause
of death, leaving a widow, invalid widower, or child under
the age of 16 years, the surviving widow or invalid widower
shall receive $20 per manth until death or remarriage, to be
increased $5 per month for each child under the age of 16
years until such child shall arrive at the age of 16 years; but
if such child is or shall be without father or mother, such
child shall receive $10 per month until arriving at the age
of 16 years. The total combined monthly payment under
this paragraph shall in no case exceed $35. Upon remar-
riage the payments on account of a child or children shall
continue as before to the child *r children. When the total
disability is only temporary, the schedule of payment re-
ferred to above shall apply so long as the total disability
shall continue, increased 50* per cent for the first six months
of such continuance, but in no case shall the increase operate
to make the monthly payment exceed 60 per cent of the
monthly wage (the daily wage multiplied by 26) the work-
man was receiving at the time of his injury. As soon as re-
covery is so complete that the present earning power of the
workman, at any kind of work, is restored to that existing
at the time of the occurrence of the injury the payments
shall cease. If and so long as the present earning power is
only partially restored the payments shall continue in the
proportion which the new earning power shall bear to the
old. No compensation shall be payable out of the accident
fund unless the loss of earning power shall exceed 5 per cent.
West Virginia. — Compensation for total disability shall be 50 per cent
. of the average weekly wage, to continue until the death of
the disabled person, subject to a maximum of $6 and a
minimum of $3 per week.
Wisconsin. — Sixty-five per cent of the average weekly earnings dur-
ing the period of total disability, to be increased after the
first 90 days to 100 per cent of the average weekly earnings
if the disability is such as to render the injured employee so
helpless as to require the assistance of a nurse. In case of
temporary disability the compensation shall not exceed four
times the average annual earnings of the employee, and in
the case of permanent total disability the compensation shall
not exceed six times the average annual earnings of the
employee. The aggregate disability shall not in any event
extend beyond 15 years from date of the accident. Total
blindness of both eyes, or loss of both arms at or near the
shoulder, or of both legs at or near the hip, or one arm at
the shoulder and one leg at the hip, shall constitute perma-
nent total disability. This enumeration is not exclusive,
but in other cases the commission shall find the facts.
DIGEST OF STATE LAWS. 81
AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION — PARTIAL DISABILITY.
Arizona. — One-half of the difference between the average earnings of
the workman at the time of the accident and the average
amount he is earning or is capable of earning thereafter,
with a proviso that in no case shall the total amount of such
payments exceed $4,000.
Oalifomia. — Where disability is temporary and partial, compensation
is 65 per cent of the weekly loss in wages during the period
of such disability, but the aggregate indemnity must not
exceed three times the average annual earnings of the em-
ployee, nor must the period extend beyond 240 weeks from
the date of accident.
Where the disability is partial but permanent, the per-
centage of disability and the disability indemnity are com-
puted and allowed as follows: For a 10 per cent disability,
65 per cent of average weekly earnings during 40 weeks; for
a 20 per cent disability, 65 per cent during 80 weeks; for a
30 per cent disability, 65 per cent during 120 weeks; for a 40
per cent disability, 65 per cent during 160 weeks; for a 50
per cent disability, 65 per cent during 200 weeks; for a 60
per cent disability, 65 per cent during 240 weeks; for a 70
per cent disability, 65 per cent during 240 weeks, and there-
after 10 per cent of such earnings during the remainder of
life; for an 80 per cent disability, 65 per cent during 240
weeks, and thereafter 20 per cent of such earnings during the
remainder of life; for a 90 per cent disability, 65 per cent
during 240 weeks, and thereafter 30 per cent of such earnings
during the remainder of life.
Connecticut. — Compensation for partial disability is a weekly sum
equal to one-half the difference between the average weekly
earnings before the injury and what the injured employee
is able to earn thereafter; subject to a maximum of $10 per
week, for a period not to exceed 312 weeks.
Illinois. — Where disability is partial and permanent, compensation
shall be an amount equaling one-half of the difference-
between the average earning power before and after the
injury, and not less than $5 nor more than $12 per week, and
for a period not to exceed eight years.
Iowa. — In all cases of partial disability, other than those enumerated
in the schedule covering lost members, the compensation
shall bear such relation to the amounts stated in the schedule
as the disability bears to those produced by the injuries
named in the schedule; subject to a maximum of $10 per
week and a minimum of $5 per week, and to continue dunng
the period of such disability, not to exceed 300 weeks.
Kansas. — Not less than 25 per cent nor more than 50 per cent of the
average weekly wages of the workman; subject to a mini-
mum of $3 per week, and a maximum of $12 per week, during
the period of such disability, not to exceed eight years. If
the workman is under 21 years of age at the time of accident,
and the average weekly earnings are less than $10, compen-
sation shall not be less than 75 per cent of his average
earnings.
30003— S. Doc. 419, 63-2 6
82 WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
Maryland. — A weekly payment during such disability equal to the
difference between the weekly benefit payment, during a period
of total disability, and the average amount whicn the
injured person is able to earn after the accident.
Massachusetts. — A weekly compensation equal to one-half the differ-
ence between the average weekly wages before the injury
and the average weekly wages that he is able to earn there-
after; not to exceed $10 per week and for a period not to
exceed 300 weeks from the date of injury.
Michigan. — A weekly compensation equal to one-half the difference
between his average weekly wages before the injury and
the average weekly wages which he is able to earn there-
after; with a maximum of $10 per week and a minimum
of $4 per week; limited to a period of 300 weeks.
Minnesota. — In all cases not enumerated in the schedule for lost
members the compensation shall be 50 per cent of the
difference between the wage of the workman at the time
of the injury and the wage he is able to earn in his partially
disabled condition, subject to maximum of $10 and min-
imum of $6 per week; payment of such compensation not
to extend beyond a period of 300 weeks.
Nebraska. — Fifty per~ cent of the difference between the wages
received at the time of injury and the earning power of
the employee thereafter; subject to a maximum of $10 per
week; to continue during the period of such partial dis-
ability; not, however, to extend beyond 300 weeks after the
date of the accident.
Nevada. — Compensation for partial disability is one-half the differ-
ence between the wages earned before the injury and the
wages the injured person is able to earn thereafter; sub-
ject to a maximum of $40 per month and for a period not
to exceed 60 months.
New Hampshire. — One-half of the difference between the average
weekly earnings before the accident and the average weekly
amount which he is earning, or is able to earn, after the
accident, subject to a maximum of $10 per week, and
limited to a period of 300 weeks from date of the accident,
and not to exceed the damage suffered.
New Jersey. — For disability, partial in character but permanent in
quality, the compensation shall be based upon the extent
of such disability.
Compensation for injuries producing temporary disability,
50 per cent of the wages received at the time of injury,
subject to a maximum of $10 per week and a minimum of
$5 per week; provided that if, at the time of the injury, he
receive wages of less than $5 per week then he shall receive
the full amount of such wages per week. Compensation not
to extend beyond a period of 300 weeks.
New York. — Sixty-six and two-thirds per cent of the difference
between the average weekly wages of the employee and his
wage-earning capacity thereafter, during the continuance
of such partial disability; but not in excess of $3,500; and
subject to a maximum of $15 per week and a minimum of
$5 per week.
DIGEST OF STATE LAWS. 83
Ohio. — Compensation for partial disability shall be 66§ per cent of
the impairment of earning capacity of the injured employee,
during the continuance thereof, subject to a maximum of
$12 weekly, and not to exceed in total payments the sum
of $3,750.
Oregon. — When the disability is, or becomes, partial only and is
temporary in character, the workman shall receive for a
period not to exceed two years that proportion of the pay-
ments provided for total disability which his earning power
in any kind of work bears to that existing at the time of the
occurrence of the injury.
Permanent partial disability means loss of either one
arm, one hand, one foot, loss of hearing in one or both ears,
loss of one. eye, one or more fingers, dislocation where liga-
ments are severed or any other injury known in surgery to
be permanent partial disability.
Rhode Island. — Fifty per cent of the difference between the average
weekly wages at the time of the accident and the average
weekly wage capacity after the accident; subject to a
maximum of $10 per week, to continue during the disability,
not to exceed a period of 300 weeks.
Texas. — Where incapacity is partial, compensation shall equal
60 per cent of the difference between average weekly wages
before the injury and the average weekly wages the work-
man is able to earn thereafter. Subject to a maximum of
$15 per week, and for a period not to exceed 300 weeks.
Washington. — For any permanent, partial disability resulting from
injury, the workman shall receive compensation in a lump
sum in the amount equal to the extent of the injury to be
decided in the first instance by the department, but not to
exceed the sum of $1,500. The loss of one major arm at or
above the elbow shall be deemed a maximum permanent par-
tial disability. Compensation for any other permanent par-
tial disability shall be in the proportion which the extent of
such disability shall bear to a said maximum. If the injured
workman be under the age of 21 years and unmarried, the
parents or parent shall also receive a lump sum payment
equal to 10 per cent of the amount awarded the minor
workman.
Permanent partial disability means the loss of either
one foot, one leg, one hand, one arm, one eye, one or more
fingers, one or more toes, any dislocation wrhere ligaments
are severed or any other injury known in surgery to be
permanent partial disability.
West Virginia. — Fifty per cent of the impairment of the employee's
earning capacity, not to exceed a maximum of $8 per week,
nor to be less than a minimum of $4 per week; during a
period not to exceed 26 weeks.
Wisconsin. — Sixty-five per cent of the weekly loss in wages during
the period of such partial disability, not to exceed in total
four times the average annual earnings of the employee;
and shall be paid during a period not exceeding 15 years.
84 WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION — LOSS OF MEMBERS.
Arizona. — No schedule for specific injuries.
California. — No schedule for specific injuries.
Connecticut. — Following is a special schedule for the loss of certain
members, subject to a maximum of $10 per week and a
minimum of $5 per week: Arm (or complete loss of use of),
50 per cent weekly wages for 208 weeks; hand (or complete
loss of use of), 50 per cent weekly wages for 156 weeks; leg (or
complete loss of use of), 50 per cent weekly wages for 182
weeks; foot (or complete loss of use of), 50 per cent weekly
wages for 130 weeks; complete loss of hearing, both ears,
50 per cent weekly wages for 156 wreeks; complete loss of
hearing in one ear, 50 per cent weekly- wages for 52 weeks;
complete loss of sight in one eye, 50 per cent weekly wages
for 104 weeks; thumb, 50 per cent weekly wages for 38
weeks; index finger, 50 per cent weekly wages for 38 weeks;
second finger, 50 per cent weekly wages for 30 weeks; third
finger, 50 per cent weekly wages for 25 weeks; fourth finger,
50 per cent weekly wages for 20 weeks; great toe, 50 per
cent weekly wages for 38 weeks; other toes (each), 50 per
cent weekly wages for 13 weeks.
Loss of one phalange of a thumb or two phalanges of a
finger shall be considered as half the loss of a thumb or finger
respectively, with compensation accordingly.
Illinois.— In addition to compensation during the period of temporary
total incapacity, compensation shall be paid for certain spe-
cific injuries (subject to a maximum of $12 and a minimum
of $5 per week) as follows : Loss of or permanent and com-
plete loss of use of thumb, 50 per cent weekly wages for 60
weeks; index finger, 50 per cent weekly wages for 35 weeks;
second finger, 50 per cent weekly wages for 30 weeks; third
finger, 50 per cent weekly wages for 20 weeks ; fourth finger,
50 per cent weekly wages for 15 weeks; great toe, 50 per
cent weekly wages for 30 weeks; other toes, 50 per cent
weekly wages for 10 weeks; hand, 50 per cent weekly wages
for 150 weeks; arm, 50 per cent weekly wages for 200 weeks;
foot, 50 per cent weekly wages for 125 weeks; leg, 50 per
cent weekly wages for 175 weeks; sight of one eye, 50 per
cent weekly wages for 100 weeks.
Loss of first phalange of thumb, or of any finger or toe,
shall be considered equal to the loss of one-half of such
member. Loss of more than one phalange shall be con-
sidered as the loss of the entire member, with compensation
accordingly. The loss of both hands, or both arms, or both
feet, or both legs, or both eyes, or any two thereof consti-
tutes total and permanent disability, with compensation
accordingly.
Iowa. — (1) For the'loss of a thumb, 50 per cent of daily wages dur-
ing 40 weeks; (2) for the loss of a first finger, commonly called
the index finger, 50 per cent of daily wages during 30 weeks;
(3) for the loss of a second finger, 50 per cent of daily wages
during 25 weeks; (4) for the loss of a third finger, 50 per
cent of daily wages during 20 weeks; (5) for the loss of a
DIGEST OF STATE LAWS. 85
fourth finger, commonly called the little finger, 50 per cent
of daily wages for 15 weeks; (6) for the loss of the first
phalange of the thumb or of any finger shall be considered
to be equal to the loss of one-half of such thumb or finger
and compensation shall be one-half of the amounts above
specified; (7) the loss of more than one phalange shall be
considered as the loss of the entire finger or thumb ; provided,
however, that in no case shall the amount received for more
than one finger exceed the amount provided in this schedule
for the loss of a hand ; (8) for the loss of a great toe, 50 per
cent of daily wages during 25 weeks ; (9) for the loss of one of
the toes other than the great toe, 50 per cent of daily wages
during 15 weeks; (10) for the loss of the first phalange of
any toe, shall be considered to be equal to the loss of one-
half of such toe and the compensation shall be one-half of
the amount above specified; (11) the loss of more than one
phalange shall be considered as the loss of the entire toe;
(12) for the loss of a hand, 50 per cent of daily wages
during 150 weeks; (13) for the loss of an arm 50 per cent of
daily wages during 200 weeks; (14) for the loss of a foot,
50 per cent of daily wages during 125 weeks; (15) for the
loss of a leg, 50 per cent of daily wages during 175 weeks;
(16) for the loss of an eye, 50 per cent of daily wages dur-
ing 100 weeks; (17) for the loss of both arms, or both hands,
or both feet, or both legs, or both eyes, or of any two thereof,
shall constitute total and permanent disability to be com-
pensated according to provisions of clause I, section 10, part
1, hereof; (18) in all other cases in this, clause J, the com-
pensation shall bear such relation to the amount stated in
the above schedule as the disability bears to those produced
by the injuries named in the schedule. Should the employee
and employer be unable to agree upon the amount of com-
pensation to be paid in cases not specifically covered by the
schedule, the amount of compensation shall be settled ac-
cording to provisions of this act as in other cases of dis-
agreement; (19) the amount specified in this, clause J, and
subdivisions thereof shall be subject to the same limitations
as to maximum and minimum weekly payments as are stated
in clause H, section 10, hereof.
Kansas. — No schedule for specific injuries.
Maryland. — The loss by actual separation at or above the wrist or
ankle of one hand or one foot shall be equal to one-half of
total disability, and the loss of one eye shall be equal to
one-fifth of total disability.
Massachusetts. — Loss of members or injury rendering them perma-
nently incapable of use are compensated in addition to all
other compensation by the payment of 50 per cent of the
average weekly wages of the injured person for the period
stated, with a maximum of $10 and a minimum of $4 per
week.
(a) Both hands, at or above the wrist; both feet, at or
above the ankle; one hand and one foot; or the reduction of
one- tenth of normal vision in both eyes with glasses, 100
weeks; (6) either hand, at or above the wrist; either foot, at
86 WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
or above the ankle; the reduction of one- tenth of normal
vision of either eye with glasses, 50 weeks; (c) two or more
fingers, including thumbs or toes, severed at or above the
second joint, 25 weeks; (d) one phalange of a finger, thumb,
or toe, 12 weeks.
Michigan. — Loss of members are compensated by the payment of 50
per cent of the average weekly wages during the period
stated. Thumb, 60 weeks; first finger, 35 weeks; second
finger, 30 weeks; third finger, 20 weeks; fourth finger, 15
weeks; great toe, 30 weeks; toe other than great toe, 10
weeks. Hand, 150 weeks; arm, 200 weeks; foot, 125
weeks; leg, 175 weeks; eye, 100 weeks.
Minnesota. — Permanent partial disability: Compensation based upon
extent of disability. Special schedule for following losses:
Thumb, 60 weeks half wages; index finger, 35 weeks half
wages; second finger, 30 weeks half wages; third finger, 20
weeks half wages; fourth finger, 15 weeks half wages; great
toe, 30 weeks half wages; other toes (each), 10 weeks half
wages; hand, 150 weeks half wages; arm, 200 weeks half
wages; foot, 125 weeks half wages; leg, 175 weeks half wages;
eye, 100 weeks half wages.
Loss of first phalange of a thumb, any finger, or toe, shall
be considered equal to loss of one-half of such member, and
loss of more than one phalange shall be considered equal to
loss of entire member, with compensation payable accord-
ingly.
The compensation provided in the above schedule is in lieu
of all other compensation in such cases and is subject to a
maximum of $10 per week and a minimum of $6 per week,
with the proviso that if at the time of injury the employee
receives wages of less than $6 per week, he shall receive the
full amount of -such wages per week.
In all cases of permanent partial disability within the
foregoing schedule, it shall be considered that permanent
loss of the use of the member shall be equivalent to the same
amount of compensation as for the loss of that member.
Nebraska. — For the loss of a hand, 50 per cent of the wages during
175 weeks; for the loss of an arm, 50 per cent of wages
during 215 weeks; for the loss of a foot, 50 per cent of wages
during 150 weeks; for the loss of a leg, 50 per cent of wages
during 215 weeks; for the loss of an eye, 50 per cent of
wages during!25 weeks; for the loss of any two or more of
such members, not constituting total disability, 50 per
cent of wages during the aggregate of the periods speci-
fied for each.
The loss of both hands or both arms, or both feet, or
both legs, or both eyes shall constitute total disability, to
be compensated according to the provisions of subdivision
1 of this section.
Amputation between the elbow and the wrist shall be
considered as the equivalent of the loss of a hand, and
amputation between the knee and the ankle shall be con-
sidered as the equivalent of the loss of a foot. Amputation
at or above the elbow shall be considered as the loss of an
DIGEST OF STATE LAWS. 87
arm, and amputation at or above the knee shall be con-
sidered as the loss of a leg. Permanent loss of the use of
a hand, arm, foot, leg, or eye shall be considered as the equiva-
lent of the loss of such hand, arm, foot, leg, or eye. Com-
pensation under this subdivision shall not be more than $10
per week nor less than $5 per week; provided that if at
the time of injury the employee receives wages of less than
$5 per week, then he shall receive the full amount of such
wages per week as compensation.
Nevada. — There is a special schedule, subject to a maximum of
$60 and a minimum of $20 monthly, for the loss of the
following members : Thumb, 50 per cent monthly wages for
15 months; index finger, 50 per cent monthly wages for 9
months; second finger, 50 per cent monthly wages for 7
months; third finger, 50 per cent monthly wages for 5
months; fourth finger, 50 per cent monthly wages for 4
months ; great toe, 50 per cent monthly wages for 7 months ;
other toes (each), 50 per cent monthly wages for 1\ months;
hand, 50 per cent monthly wages for 40 months; arm, 50
per cent monthly wages for 50 months; foot, 50 per cent
monthly wages if or 35 months; leg, 50 per cent monthly
wages for 45 months; eye, 50 per cent monthly wages for
25 months.
Loss of more than one phalange shall be considered as the
loss of the entire finger or thumb; provided, however, that
in no case shall the amount received for more than one
finger exceed the amount for the loss of a hand. Loss of
the first phalange of any toe shall be considered as the,
loss of one-half of such toe, with compensation accordingly.
New Hampshire. — No schedule for specific injuries.
New Jersey. — Special schedule for the loss of the following members:
Thumb, 60 weeks, half wages; index finger, 35 weeks, half
wages; second finger, 30 weeks, half wages; third finger, 20
weeks, half wages; fourth finger, 15 weeks, half wages; great
toe, 30 weeks, half wages; other toes, (each) 10 weeks, half
wages; hand, 150 weeks, half wages; arm, 200 weeks, half
wages; foot, 125 weeks, half wages; leg, 175 weeks, half
wages; eye, 100 weeks, half wages.
Loss of the first phalange of thumb, any finger or any toe
shall be considered equal to the loss of one half of such
member and the loss of more than one phalange shall be
considered equal to the loss of the entire member, with
compensation accordingly.
New York. — Permanent partial disability: In case of disability par-
tial in character but permanent in quality the compensation
shall be 66 § per cent of the average weekly wages and shall
be paid to the employee for the period named in the schedule
as follows: For the loss of a thumb, 60 weeks; for the loss of
of a first finger, commonly called index finger, 46 weeks; for
the loss of a second finger, 30 weeks; for the loss of a third
finger, 25 weeks; for the loss of a fourth finger, commonly
called the little finger, 15 weeks; the loss of the first phalange
of the thumb or finger shall be considered to be equal to the
loss of one half of such thumb or finger, and compensation
88 WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
shall be one half of the amount above specified. The loss
of more than one phalange shall be considered as the loss of
the entire thumb or finger: Provided, however, That in no
case shall the amount received for more than one finger
exceed the amount provided in this schedule for the loss of
a hand; for the loss of a great toe, 38 weeks; for the loss of
one of the toes other than the great toe, 16 weeks; the loss
of the first phalange of any toe shall be considered to be equal
to the loss of one half of said toe, and the compensation shall
be one half of the amount specified. The loss of more than
one phalange shall be considered as the loss of the entire toe.
The loss of a hand, 244 weeks; for the loss of an arm, 312
weeks; for the loss of a foot, 205 weeks; for the loss of a
leg, 288 weeks-; for the loss of an eye, 128 weeks; perma-
nent loss of the use of a hand, arm, foot, leg, or eye shall be
considered as the equivalent of the loss of such hand, arm,
foot, leg, or eye. Amputation between the elbow and the
wrist shall be considered as the equivalent of the loss of a
hand. Amputation between the knee and the ankle shall
be considered as the equivalent of the loss of a foot. Ampu-
tation at or above the elbow shall be considered as loss of an
arm. Amputation at or above knee equivalent to loss of leg.
The compensation payments above provided for shall not
exceed, except in the case of the loss of a hand, arm, foot,
leg, or an eye, $15 per week nor be less than $5 per week:
and the compensation payments in case of the loss of a hand,
arm, foot, leg, or an eye shall not exceed $20 per week nor
be less than $5 per week, with the proviso that in each case,
if the employee's wages at the time of injury are less than $5
per week, he shall receive his full weekly wages.
iere is a special schedule for the loss of the following mem-
bers: Thumb, 66§ per cent weekly wage during 60 weeks;
index finger, 66§ per cent weekly wage during 35 weeks;
second finger, 66§ per cent weekly wage during 30 weeks;
third finger, 66§ per cent weekly wage during 20 weeks;
fourth finger, 66 § per cent weekly wage during 15 weeks;
hand, 66§ per cent weekly wage during 150 weeks; arm,
66§ per cent weekly wage during 200 weeks; great toe, 66§
per cent weekly wage during 30 weeks; other toes (each),
66§ per cent weekly wage during 10 weeks; foot, 66§ per
cent weekly wage during 125 weeks; leg, 66§ per cent
weekly wage during 175 weeks; eye, 66§ per cent weekly
wage during 100 weeks.
Oregon.— Where permanent partial disability 'shall result from any
injury, the workman shall receive the sum of $25 a month
for the period stated against such injury, respectively, as
follows: In case of the loss by separation of one arm at or
above the elbow joint, or the permanent and complete loss
of the use of one arm, 96 months ; the loss by separation of
one hand at or above the wrist joint, or the permanent and
complete loss of the use of one hand, 76 months; the loss
by separation of one leg, at or above the knee joint, or the
permanent and complete loss of the use of one leg, 88
months; the loss by separation of one foot at or above the
DIGEST OF STATE LAWS. 89
ankle joint, or the permanent and complete loss of the use
of one foot, 64 months; the permanent and complete loss
of hearing in both ears, 96 months; the permanent and
complete loss of hearing in one ear, 48 months, or, at the
option of the workman, $900 in a lump sum; the permanent
and complete loss of the sight of one eye, 40 months, or, at
the option of the workman, $850 in a lump sum; the loss
by separation of a thumb, 24 months, or, at the option of
the workman, $600 in a lump sum; the loss by separation
of a first finger, 16 months, or, at the option of the workman,
$350 in a lump sum; the second finger, 9 months, or, at the
option of the workman, $200 in a lump sum; a third finger,
8 months, or, at the option of the workman, $175 in a lump
sum ; a fourth finger, 6 months, or, at the option of the work-
man, $150 in a lump sum.
The loss of one phalange of the thumb shall be considered
equal to the loss of one-half a thumb; the loss of one phal-
ange of a finger, equal to the loss of one-third of a finger,
and the loss of two phalanges of a finger, equal to the loss
of one-half a finger, and the compensation for the respective
proportions of the above period or in the respective propor-
tions of the above lump sum shall be payable. The loss of
more than one phalange of a thumb or more than two pha-
langes of a finger shall be considered as the loss of an entire
thumb or finger.
The loss by separation of a great toe, 10 months, or, at
the option of the workman, $250 in a lump sum; any other
toe, 4 months, or, at the option of the workman, $100 in a
lump sum.
Rhode Island. — (a) For the loss by severance of both hands at or
above the wrist, or both feet at or above the ankle, or the
loss of one hand and one foot, or the entire and irrecoverable
loss of the sight of both eyes, one-half of the average weekly
wages, earnings, or salary of the injured person, but not
more than $10 nor less than $4 a week, for a period of 100
weeks. (6) For the loss by severance of either hand at or
above the wrist, or either foot at or above the ankle, or the
entire and irrecoverable loss of the sight of either eye, one-half
the average weekly wages, earnings, or salary of the injured
person, but not more than $10 nor less than $4 a week, for
a period of 50 weeks, (c) For the loss by severance at or
above the second joint of two or more fingers, including
thumbs, or toes, one-half the average weekly wages, earn-
ings, or salary of the injured person, but not more than $10
nor less than $4 a week, for a period of 25 weeks, (d) For
the loss by severance of at least one phalange of a finger,
thumb, or toe, one-half the average weekly wages, earn-
ings, or salary of the injured person, but not more than $10
nor less than $4 a week, for a period of 12 weeks.
Texas. — A special schedule is provided for the following losses: Loss
of both hands, both feet, one hand and one foot, or the
reduction to 1/10. of the normal vision in both eyes, 60 per
cent of the average weekly wages, subject to a maximum
of $15 and a minimum of $5 per week, for not to exceed 100
90 WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
weeks. Loss of one hand, one foot, or the reduction to 1/10
of the normal vision of one eye, 60 per cent of average weekly
wages, subject to a maximum of $15 and a minimum of $5
per week, for not to exceed 50 weeks. Loss of two or more
fingers, thumbs, or toes, 60 per cent of the average weekly
wages, subject to a maximum of $15 and a minimum of $5
per week, for not to exceed 25 weeks. Loss of at least one
joint of a finger, thumb, or toe, 60 per cent of the average
weekly wages, subject to a maximum of $15 and a mini-
mum of $5 per week, for not to exceed 12 weeks.
Washington. — The only provision in the Washington statute that
fixes definite amounts for specific injuries is the provision
providing that for any permanent partial disability which is
defined elsewhere, as covering, among other things, loss of
either foot, leg, hand, arm, eye, fingers, or toes, the work-
man shall receive in a lump sum the amount equal to the
extent of the injury, to be stated in the first instance by
the department, but not in any case to exceed the sum of
$1,500; and the loss of one major arm at or above the elbow
shall be deemed a maximum permanent partial disability.
West Virginia. — If the partial disability consists of the loss of an arm
or a leg, at or above the wrist in the one case and the ankle
in the other, or the loss of an eye, 50 per cent of the im-
pairment of the earning capacity, subject to a maximum of
$8 per week and a minimum of $4 per week, payable during
a period not exceeding 156 weeks.
Wisconsin. — In cases included by the following schedule the compen-
sation to be paid, subject to the provisions of this act for
maximum and minimum payments, shall be 65 per cent of
the average weekly earnings of the employee for the periods
named in the schedule, to wit: The loss of one arm at or
near the shoulder, 240 weeks; the loss of an arm at the
elbow, 200 weeks; the loss of a forearm at the lower half
thereof, 160 weeks; the loss of a hand, 160 weeks; the loss
of a palm where the thumb remains, 80 weeks; the loss of a
thumb and the metacarpal bone thereof, 60 weeks; the loss
of a thumb at the proximal joint, 40 weeks; the loss of a
thumb at the second or distal joint, 20 weeks; the loss of an
index finger and the metacarpal bone thereof, 30 weeks; the
loss of an index finger at the proximal joint, 20 weeks; the
loss of an index finger at the second joint, 15 weeks; the loss
of an index finger at the distal joint, 10 weeks; the loss of a
second finger and the metacarpal bone thereof, 20 weeks;
the loss of a middle finger at the proximal joint, 15 weeks;
the loss of a middle finger at the second joint, 10 weeks; the
loss of a middle finger at the distal joint, 5 weeks; the loss
of a third or ring finger and the metacarpal bone thereof, 12
weeks; the loss of a ring finger at the proximal joint, 8 weeks;
the loss of a ring finger at the second joint, 6 weeks; the loss
of a ring finger at the distal joint, 4 weeks; the loss of a little
finger and the metacarpal bone thereof, 15 weeks; the loss
of a little finger at the proximal joint, 10 weeks; the loss of a
little finger at the second joint, 8 weeks; the loss of a little
DIGEST OF STATE LAWS. 91
finger at the distal joint, 4 weeks; the loss of all the fingers
of one hand where the thumb and palm remain, 60 weeks;
the loss of a leg at the hip joint, or so near thereto as to pre-
clude the use of an artificial limb, 240 weeks; the loss of a
leg at or above the knee, where stump remains sufficient to
permit the use of an artificial limb, 160 weeks; the loss of a
loot at the ankle, 120 weeks; the loss of a great toe with ^he
metatarsal bone thereof, 30 weeks; the loss of a great toe at
the proximal joint, 20 weeks; the loss of a great toe at the
second joint, 10 weeks; the loss of any other toe with the
metatarsal bone thereof, 12 weeks; the loss of any other toe
at the proximal joint, 4 weeks; the loss of any other toe at
the second or distal joint, 4 weeks; the loss of all the toes of
one foot, 40 weeks; the loss of an eye by enucleation, 160
weeks; the loss of the second eye by enucleation, 320 weeks;
total blindness of one eye, 120 weeks; total blindness of the
second eye, 240 weeks; total deafness of both ears, 160
weeks; total deafness of one ear, 40 weeks; total deafness
of the second ear, 120 weeks.
When by reason of infection or other cause not due to the
neglect or misconduct of the injured employee he is actually
disabled longer than the time specified in the foregoing
schedule from earning a wage, compensation shall be paid
such employee for such loss of wage within the limits other-
wise provided.
For the purposes of this schedule permanent and complete
paralysis of any member shall be deemed equivalent to the
loss thereof.
Whenever an amputation is made between any two joints
mentioned in this schedule (except amputations between the
knee and hip joint) the resultant loss shall be estimated as
if the amputation had been made at the joint nearest thereto.
Comparative statement upon maximum for loss of arm.
Arizona, 50 per cent wage impairment up to $4,000.
Connecticut, $2,080.
Illinois, $2,400.
Iowa, $2,000.
Kansas, 50 per cent wage impairment eight ytars.
Massachusetts, 50 per cent wage impairment 300 weeks, and not exceeding
$500 additional.
Michigan, $2,000.
Minnesota, $2,000.
Nebraska, $2,150.
Nevada, $3,000.
New York (compulsory act), $6,240.
New Jersey, $2,000.
New Hampshire, $3,000.
Ohio, $2,400.
Oregon, $2,400.
Rhode Island, 50 per cent wage impairment 300 weeks, and not exceeding
$500 additional.
Texas, 50 per cent wage impairment 300 weeks, and not exceeding $750
additional.
Washington, $1,500.
Wisconsin, $3,000.
WTest Virginia, $1,456.
92 WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
DEATH BENEFITS.
Arizona. — When the death of the workman results from accident
within six months thereafter, and he leaves at the time of his
death a widow and a minor child or children dependents, a
sum equal to two thousand four hundred times one-half
the daily wages or earnings of the deceased; subject to a
maximum of $4,000, such sum to be paid in lump and held
in trust by the personal representatives of the deceased
workman lor such widow and children, and applied to the
support of the widow while she remains unmarried, and to
the support and education of the children so long as neces-
sary and until 18 years of age. If the workman leaves no
widow or child or children, but a father, or mother, or sister
dependent, then said sum shall be for their benefit; if no
dependents, then reasonable expenses of medical attendance
and burial.
California. — Compensation for death is payable in installments equal
to 65 per cent of the average weekly earnings of the deceased
employee, as follows: (1) If there are total dependents, a
sum sufficient, when added to the disability indemnity
accrued and payable at the time of death, to make the total
disability indemnity and death benefit equal to three times
the average annual earnings, such annual earnings to be
taken at not less than $333.33 nor more than $1,666.66; (2)
if there be no total dependents but only partial dependents,
such percentage of three times such average annual earnings
of the deceased as the annual amount devoted by him to the
support of the partial dependents bears to such average
annual earnings; but such sum, when added to the disa-
bility indemnity accrued and payalle at the time of death
must not exceed three times the average annual earnings,
such earnings to be taken at not less than $333.33 nor more
than $1,666.66; (3) if there are no dependents, reasonable
burial expenses not exceeding $100 in amount.
Connecticut. — All death compensation is subject to a maximum of
$10 and a minimum of $5 per week, and a maximum period
of 312 weeks.
Compensation shall be paid on account of death resulting
from injuries within two years from date of injury as follows:
(a) Foi burial expenses $100; (6) to those totally dependent
upon the deceased employee at the time of his injury a
weekly compensation equal to half of the average weekly
earnings of the deceased at the time of his injury; (c) in case
there is no one totally dependent upon the deceased em-
ployee then to those partially dependent upon the deceased
employee at the time of his injury a weekly compensation
not exceeding that payable to total dependents and of such
proportionate sum as may be determined according to the
measure of dependence; (d) in case there are no dependents
of the deceased employee the sum of $750, to be paid to the
State treasurer and by him set apart as a fund to be used for
the payment of lawful expenses of the commissioners; but
the compensation payable on account of death resulting from
DIGEST OF STATE LAWS. 93
injuries shall in no case be more than $10 or less than $5
weekly, and such compensation shall not continue longer
than 312 weeks after death. The compensation on account
of death payable under this act to a widow or widower of a
deceased employee shall not cease with the death of such
widow or widower, but upon her or his death within the
period during which such compensation is payable it shall
continue to be paid for the remainder of such period to her
or his dependents as defined in section 43.
Illinois. — Death compensation shall be in amount and as follows:
(a) If employee leaves widow, child or children whom he
was under legal obligation to support, a sum equal to four
times his average annual earnings, but not less than $1,500
nor more than $3,500.
(6) If no amount is payable under paragraph (a), then to
a widow, child, parent, grandparent, or other lineal heirs to
whose support he had contributed within four years previous
to the injury, a sum equal to four times his average annual
earnings, but not less than $1,500 nor more than $3,500.
(c) If no amount payable under paragraph (a) or (6),
then to dependent collateral heirs, such a percentage of the
sum provided in paragraph (a) as the average annual con-
tribution made by deceased to the support of such dependent
collateral heirs during the two years preceding the injury
bears to such earnings.
(d) If no amount payable under paragraph (a) or (6) or
(c), then for burial expenses a sum not to exceed $150.
Iowa. — To those wholly dependent on the decedent for support at the
time of injury, a payment equal to 50 per cent of his average
weekly wages; subject to a maximum of $10 per week and
a minimum of $5 per week, for a period of 300 weeks.
To partial dependents a weekly compensation equal to
the same proportion of the weekly benefits for the benefit of
persons wholly dependent, as the amount contributed by
the employee to such partial dependents bear to the actual
earnings of the deceased at the time of injury; maximum
period, 300 weeks.
Where injury causes death to an employee, a minor, whose
earnings were received by the parents, the compensation
paid to the parents shall be two-thirds of the amount pro-
vided for payment to dependents.
Kansas. — Death compensation shall be as follows:
(a). To those wholly dependent, a sum equal to three
times the earnings of the deceased workman for the preced-
ing year, subject to a maximum of $3,600 and a minimum
of $1,200, such earnings to' be computed upon the basis of
wages during the 30 days next preceding the accident; but
if no dependents who are citizens of and residing in the
United States or Canada, the compensation shall not
exceed $750.
(b) If no one wholly dependent, then to partial depen-
dents such proportion of the foregoing amounts as may be
agreed upon or determined to be proportionate to the
injury to said dependents.
94 WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
(c) If no dependents, the reasonable expenses of medical
attendance and burial, not to exceed $100.
Maryland. — To those wholly dependent at the time of the decedent's
death, a sum equal to his wages during the previous three
years, but not less than $1,000.
Massachusetts. — To persons wholly dependent, weekly payment equal
to one-half average weekly wages; maximum $10, minimum
$4, for a period of 300 weeks from the date of injury.
To partial dependents, payments shall be equal to that
proportion of the weekly payments for the benefit of persons
wholly dependent as the amount contributed by the employee
bears to the annual earnings of the deceased at the time of
his injury. Where weekly payments have been made to an
injured employee before his death, the combined payments
of the injured person and his dependents shall not exceed
300 weeks from the date of injury.
Michigan. — To persons wholly dependent, weekly payment equal to
one-half weekly wages — maximum $10 and minimum $4 a
week — for a period of 300 weeks.
To partial dependents, a weekly amount equal to the same
proportion of the amounts payable to persons wholly depend-
ent as the amount contributed by the employee to such par-
tial dependents bears to the annual earnings of the deceased
at time of injury.
Where death follows period of disability, dependents to
receive difference between what they would have received
had the accident resulted in immediate death and the amount
that the deceased has already received as compensation be-
fore in weekly installments.
Minnesota. — In case of death compensation shall be subject to maxi-
mum of $10 and minimum of $6 per week, except where
weekly wage is less than $6, then full wages. Maximum
period of 300 weeks. Such compensation payable to depend-
ents shall be distributed according to law and shall be com-
puted on the following basis: Widow alone, 35 per cent of
monthly wages; widow and one dependent child, 40 per cent
of monthly wages; widow and two or three dependent chil-
dren, 50 per cent of monthly wages; widow and four or more
dependent children, 60 per cent of monthly wages; depend-
ent orphan, 40 per cent of monthly wages, 10 per cent addi-
tional for each orphan in excess of two — maximum 60 per
cent; dependent husband alone, 25 per cent of monthly
wages; dependent parent or parents alone, 25 per cent of
monthly wages if one, 35 per cent of monthly wages if two;
dependent brother, sister, or grandparent alone, 25 per cent
of monthly wages if one, 30 per cent of monthly wages if
more than one.
Partial dependents are entitled to receive that proportion
of the benefits provided for actual dependents which the aver-
age amount of the weekly contribution of the deceased bore
to the total wages of deceased. If there are no dependents,
compensation payable shall be the expenses of last sickness
and burial, with maximum of $100, in addition to the regular
medical and hospital services.
DIGEST OF STATE LAWS. 95
Nebraska. — To persons wholly dependent, 50 per cent of the wages
received at the time of injury, with a maximum of $10 per
week and a minimum of $5 per week, with a proviso that
if at the time of injury the employee receives wages of less
than $5 per week then the compensation shall be the full
amount of such wages per week. This compensation shall
be paid during dependency, not exceeding 350 weeks from
the date of the accident causing the injury.
To partial dependents the compensation shall be the same
proportion of the benefits provided in case of total depend-
ency as the average amount of the wages regularly contrib-
uted by the deceased to such partial dependents, at and
for a reasonable time immediately prior to the injury, to the
total wages of the deceased during the same time.
Nevada. — An amount equivalent to 50 per cent of the decedent's aver-
age monthly earnings, but not less than $20 nor more than
$60 per month, for a period of 100 months, with a maximum
amount of $5,000.
New Hampshire. — If total dependents, 150 times average weekly wage
less any weekly payments made — maximum, $3,000. If par-
tial dependents, such percentage of above as amount contrib-
uted by deceased to such partial dependents bore to total
wages of deceased.
New Jersey. — Compensation in case of death subject to a maximum
of $10 per week and a minimum of $5 per week, excent
where weekly wage less than $5, then full wages. Maxi-
mum period, 300 weeks.
Such compensation is computed, but not distributed, on
the following basis:
Actual dependents: For one dependent, 35 per cent of
wages; for two dependents, 40 per cent of wages; for three
dependents, 45 per cent of wages; for four dependents, 50
percent of wages; for five dependents, 55 per cent of wages;
for six dependents, 60 per cent of wages.
Compensation shall be distributed among dependents, if
more than one, according to the order of the judge of the
court of common pleas. Where there are no dependents
the only compensation shall be expenses of last sickness
and burial, with a maximum of $100 for cost of burial.
New York. — If there be a surviving wife (or dependent husband)
and no child of the deceased under the age of 18 years, to
such wife (or dependent husband) 30 per cent of the average
wages of the deceased during widowhood (or dependent
widowerhood), with two years' compensation in one sum,
upon remarriage ; and if there be surviving child or children
of the deceased under the age of 18 years, the additional
amount of 10 per cent of such wages for each such child
until of the age of 18 years, provided that the total amount
payable shall in no case exceed 66§ per cent of such wages.
If there be surviving child or children of the deceased
under the age of 18 years, but no surviving wife (or depend-
ent husband), then for the support of each such child until
of the age of 18 years, 15 per cent of the wages of the de-
ceased, provided that the aggregate shall in no case exceed
66§ per cent of such wages.
96 WORKMEN 'S COMPENSATION.
If the amount payable to surviving wife (or dependent
husband) and to children under the age of 18 years shall be
less in the aggregate than 66§ per cent of the average wages
of the deceased, then for the support of grandchildren or
brothers and sisters under the age of 18 years, if dependent
upon the deceased at the time of the accident, 15 per cent
of such wages for the support of each such person until of
the age of 18 years; and for the support of each parent or
grandparent of the deceased, if dependent upon him at the
time of the accident, 15 per cent of such wages during such
dependency. But in no case shall the aggregate amount
payable under this subdivision exceed the difference be-
tween 66 § per cent of such wages, and the amount payable
as hereinbefore provided to surviving wife (or dependent
husband) or for the support of surviving child or children.
Any excess of wages over $100 a month shall not be taken
into account in computing compensation under this section.
All questions of dependency shall be determined as of the
time of the accident.
Ohio. — In all death cases, reasonable funeral expenses shall be paid,
subject to a maximum of $150, in addition to any other
award.
Where the injury causes death within two }^ears the
benefits shall be in the amounts and to the persons follow-
ing: (a) If no dependents, funeral expenses only, (b) If
there are wholly dependent persons at the time of death,
66| per cent average weekly wage, to continue for the re-
mainder of the period between the date of death and six
years after the date of injury, subject to a maximum of
$3,750 and a minimum of $1,500. (c) If there are partly
dependent persons at the time of death, 66§ per cent average
weekly wage, to continue for all or such portion of the period
of six years after the date of the injury as the board in each
case may determine, subject to a maximum of $3,750.
Oregon. — (1) If the workman leaves a widow or invalid widower, a
monthly payment of $30 shall be paid throughout the life
of the surviving spouse, to cease at the end of the month in
which remarriage shall occur; and the surviving spouse
shall also receive $6 per month for each child of the de-
ceased under the age of 16 years at the time of the occurrence
of the injury until such minor shall reach the age of 16 years,
but the total monthly payment under this paragraph (1)
shall not exceed $50. Upon remarriage of a widow she
shall receive once for all a lump sum equal to ten times her
monthly allowance, viz: The sum of $300, but the monthly
payments for the child or children shall continue as before.
(2) If the workman leaves no wife or husband but a child
or children under the age of 16 years, a monthly payment of
$15 shall be made to each child until such child shall reacli
the age of 16 years, provided, however, that if any child is
under the age of 16 years and over the age of 15 years, he
shall be entitled to recover such payments for a period of
one year, but the total monthly payment shall not exceed
$50, and any deficit shall be deducted proportionately
among the beneficiaries.
DIGEST OF STATE LAWS. 97
(3) If the workman leaves no widow, widower, or child
under the age of 16 years, but leaves a dependent or depen-
dents, a monthly payment shall be made to each dependent
equal to 50 per cent of the average monthly support actually
received by such dependent from the workman during the
12 months next preceding the occurrence of the injury, but
the total payment to all dependents in any case, shall not
exceed $30 per month. If any dependent is under the age
of 16 years at the time of the occurrence of the injury, the
payment to such dependent shall cease when such depen-
dent shall reach the age of 16 years, excepting a daughter,
the payment to whom shall cease when she shall have
Breached the age of 18 years; provided, however, that if
any child is under the age of 16 years and over the age of
15 years, he shall be entitled to recover such payments for
a period of one year. The payment to any dependent shall
cease if, and when, under the same circumstances, the
necessity creating the dependency would have ceased if the
injury had not happened.
If the workman is under the age of 21 years and unmar-
ried at the tune of his death, the parents or parent of the
workman shall receive $25 per month for each month after
his death until the time at which he would have arrived at
the age of 21 years; provided, however, that such parents
shall be entitled thereafter to compensation as dependents
under the provisions of the first clause of this paragraph
three.
(4) In the event a surviving spouse receiving monthly
payments shall die leaving a child or children under the age
of 16 years, the sum he or she shall be receiving on account
of such child or children shall thereafter, until such child
shall arrive at the age of 16 years, be paid to the child in-
creased to $15 per month; provided, however, that if any
such child is under the age of 16 years and over the age of
15 years he shall be entitled to recover such payments for a
period of one year, but the total to all children shall not
exceed the sum of $50 per month.
Khode Island. — To persons wholly dependent, weekly payment equal
to one-half average weekly wages, earnings, or salary;
maximum, $10; minimum, $4, for a period of 300 weeks.
If dependent is the widow of employee, upon her death, the
compensation thereafter payable under the act, shall be
paid to the child or children of the deceased employee, in-
cluding adopted and stepchildren under the age of 18 years,
or over that age if they are physically or mentally incapaci-
tated from earning, dependent upon the widow at the time
of her death. If more than one child, the compensation to
be equally divided.
Partiaf dependents shall receive a weekly payment equal
to the same proportion of the weekly payments provided
for tke benefit of persons wholly dependent as the amount
contributed annually by the employee to such partial de-
pendents bears to the annual earnings of the deceased at
the time of injury, for a period of 300 weeks r
30003— S. Poc. 419, 63-2 7
98 WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
When weekly payments have been made an injured em-
ployee before liis death, the compensation to dependents
shall begin from the date of the last of such payments, but
shall not continue for more than 300 weeks from the date
of the injury.
Texas. —Compensation for death is 60 per cent average weekly wages,
subject to maximum of $15 and a minimum of $5 per week,
for not more than 360 weeks, such compensation to be dis-
tributed according to the laws governing the distribution of
other property of deceased persons. If deceased employee
leaves no legal beneficiaries or creditors, the expenses of last
sickness or Burial, not to exceed $100, shall be paid. If de-
ceased leaves no beneficiaries, but leaves creditors, the
association shall be liable to such creditors for an amount
not exceeding the amount that otherwise would have been
due beneficiaries.
Washington. — Where death results from the injury the expenses of
burial shall be paid in all cases, not to exceed $75 in any
case, and
(1) If the workman leaves a widow or invalid widower, a
monthly payment of $20 shall be made throughout the life
of the surviving spouse, to cease at the end of the month in
which remarriage shall occur; and the surviving spouse shall
also receive $5 per month for each child of the deceased
under the age of 16 years at time of the occurrence of the
injury until such minor child shall reach the age of 16 years,
but the total monthly payment under this paragraph (1)
of subdivision (a) shall not exceed $35. Upon remarriage
of a widow she shall receive, once and for all, a lump sum
equal to 12 times her monthly allowance, viz, the sum of
$240, but the monthly payment for the child or children
shall continue as before.
(2) If the workman leaves no wife or husband, but a child
or children under the age of 16 years, a monthly payment
of $10 shall be made to each such child until such child shall
reach the age of 16 years, but the total monthly payment
shall not exceed $35, and any deficit shall be deducted pro-
portionately among the beneficiaries.
(3) If the workman leaves no widow, widower, or child
under the age of 16 years, but leaves a dependent or depend-
ents, a monthly payment shall be made to each dependent
equal to 50 per cent of the average monthly support actually
received by such dependent from the workman during the
12 months next preceding the occurrence of the injury, but
the toal payment to all dependents in any case shall not
exceed $20 per month. If any dependent is under the age
of 16 years at the time of the occurrence of the injury, the
payment to such dependent shall cease when such depend 3nt
shall reach the age of 16 years. The payment to any de-
pendent shall cease if and when, under the same circum-
stances, the necessity creating the dependency would have
ceased if the injury had not happened.
If the workman is under the age of 21 years and unmar-
ried at the time of his death, the parents or parent of the
DIGEST OF STATE LAWS. 99
workman shall receive $20 per month for each month after
his death until the time at which he would have arrived at
the age of 21 years.
(4) In the event a surviving spouse receiving monthly
payments shall die, leaving a child or children under the age
of 16 years, the sum he or she shall be receiving on account
of such child or children shall be thereafter, until such child
shall arrive at the age of 16 years, paid to the child in-
creased 100 per cent, but the total to all children shall not
exceed the sum of $35 per month.
West Virginia. — In all death cases reasonable funeral expenses, not
exceeding $75, shall be paid in addition to any other award.
If an injury causes death within 90 days, benefits shall be
in amounts and to the persons following :
(a) Dependent farther or mother of deceased employee
who was a minor and unmarried is entitled to 50 per cent of
weekly wage, not exceeding $6 per week, to continue until
the employee would have been 21 years of age.
(&) Widow or invalid widower of deceased employee is
entitled to $20 a month until the death or remarriage of such
widow or widower; additional $5 per month for each child
under the age of lawful employment, to be paid until such
child reaches lawful age, total payment not to exceed $35
per month.
(c) If there be wholly dependent persons other than widow,
widower, or child, the payment shall be 50 per cent of the
average monthly support actually received from the employee
during the preceding 12 months, to continue for the re-
mainder of the period between the date of death and six
years after the date of injury, with a maximum of $20 per
month.
(d] Partially dependent persons are entitled to 50 per cent
of the average monthly support actually received during the
preceding 12 months, to continue for such portion of the
period of six years after the date of injury as the commission
may determine, with a maximum of $20 per month.
All payments of benefits in death cases made according to
the determination of the commission.
Wisconsin. — Where death proximately results from the injury and the
deceased leaves a person or persons wholly dependent upon
him for support, the death benefit shall be as follows:
In case the injured employee was permanently totally dis-
abled, a sum equal to four tunes his average annual earnings,
but which, when added to the disability indemnity paid and
due at the tune of death, shall not exceed six times his
average annual earnings.
In case the injured employee was not permanently totally
disabled, such sum which, when added to the disability
indemnity paid and due at the time of his death, shall equal
four times his average annual earnings.
If death occurs to an injured employee other than as a
proximate result of the accident, before disability indemnity
ceases, death benefit shall be as follows:
100 WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
Where the accident proximately causes permanent total
disability, it shall be the same as if the accident had caused
death.
Where the accident proximately causes permanent partial
disability, liability shall exist for such benefit as shall fairly
represent the proportionate extent of the impairment of
earning capacity in the employment in which the deceased
was working at the time of the accident, or other suitable
employment, caused by such disability.
In case the deceased employee leaves no one wholly de-
pendent upon him for support, but one or more persons
partially dependent therefor, the death benefit shall not
exceed four times the amount devoted by deceased, during
the year immediately preceding his death, to the support
of such dependents and shall be apportioned according to the
percentage that the amount devoted by the deceased to the
support of such person or persons, for the year immediately
prior to the accident, bears to the average annual earnings
of the deceased.
Death benefit shall be paid in weekly installments corres-
ponding in amount to 65 per cent of the weekly earnings
of the employee, until otherwise ordered by the commission.
WHO ARE DEPENDENTS.
Arizona. — Widow, and a minor child, or children, depending on the
workman's earnings for support and education, father,
mother, or sister, dependent on him for support.
California. — The following shall be conclusively presumed to be
wholly dependent for support upon a deceased employee:
A wife upon a husband with whom she was living at the
time of his death.
A husband upon a wife upon whose earnings he is par-
tially or wholly dependent at the time of her death.
A child or children under the age of 18 years (or over
said ag3, but physically or mentally incapacitated from
earning) upon the parent with whom he or or they are living
at the time of the death of such parent or for whose main-
tenance such parent was legally liable at the time of his
death, there being no surviving dependent parent.
In all other cases, questions of entire or partial depend-
ency and questions as to who constitute dependents and the
extent of their dependency shall be determined in accord-
ance with the fact, as the fact may be at the time of the
death of the employee.
No person shall be considered a dependent of any deceased
employee unless a member of the family of such employee
or unless such person bears to such employee the relation of
husband or wife, child, adopted child or stepchild, father or
mother, father-in-law or mother-in-law, grandfather or
grandmother, brother or sister, nephew or niece.
If there is one or more persons wholly dependent for
support upon a deceased employee, such person or persons
shall receive the entire death benefit, and any person or
DIGEST OF STATE I-A.WS. 101
persons partially dependent shall receive no part thereof,
unless otherwise ordered by the commission.
If there is more than one such person wholly dependent
for support upon a deceased employee, the death benefit
shall be divided equally among them, unless otherwise or-
dered by the commission.
If there is more than one person partially dependent for
support upon a deceased employee, and no person wholly
dependent for support, the amount allowed as the death
benefit shall be divided among the persons so partially de-
pendent in proportion to the relative extent of their de-
pendency, unless otherwise ordered by the commission.
Connecticut. — Meaning of dependence. The following persons are
conclusively presumed to be totally dependent for support
upon a deceased employee: (a) A wife upon a husband with
whom she lives at the time of his injury or from whom she
receives support regularly; (b) a husband upon a wife with
whom he lives at the time of her injurv or from whom he
receives support regularly; (c) a child or children under
the age of 18 years, or over said age but physically or men-
tally incapacitated from earning, upon the parent with
whom he is or they are living or from whom he is or they
are receiving support regularly at the time of the injury of
such parent, there being no surviving dependent parent.
Illinois. — Widow, child, or children, whom the decedent was under
legal obligations to support at the time of his injury. Any
widow, child, parent, grandparent, or other lineal heir to
whose support the decedent had contributed within four
years previous to the time of his injury. In the absence of
any oi the above-described dependents collateral heirs de-
pendent at the time of injury upon the decedent's earnings.
Iowa. — The following conclusively presumed to be wholly dependent :
The surviving spouse, unless it be shown that the survivor
willfully deserted without fault upon the decedent's part;
a child or children under 16 years of age; over that age if
physically or mentally incapacitated from earning, whether
actually dependent for support or not; a parent of a minor
entitled to his or her earnings at the time of the injury. In
all other questions dependence in whole or in part to be de-
termined in accordance with the fact as the fact may be at
the time of injury. Step-parents are regarded as parents,
and adopted children or stepchildren are regarded the same
as if issue of the body.
Kansas. — Such members of tlie workman's family as were wholly or
in part dependent at the time of the accident. "Members
of a family means only widow or husband, as the case may
be, and children; or, if no widow, husband, or children, then
parents and grandparents; or, if no parents or grandparents,
then grandchildren; or, if no grandchildren, then brothers
and sisters." The word " parents" includes step-parents,
the word " children" includes stepchildren, the word "grand-
children" include step-grandchildren, the words "brothers"
and "sisters" include stepbrothers and stepsisters, and the
words "parents" and "children" include that relation by
legal adoption.
102 WORKEN 'S COMPENSATION.
. — Subject to contract.
Massachusetts. — The following persons shall be conclusively presumed
to be wholly dependent:
A wifs upon a husband with whom she lives at the time
of his death; a husband upon a wife with whom he lives at
the time of her death; a child or children under the age of
18 (or over said age, but physically or mentally incapaci-
tated from earning) upon the'parent with whom it is living
at the time of the death of such parent, there being no
surviving dependent parent.
In case there is more than one child, the death benefit
shall be equally divided. In other cases the question of
dependency shall be determined in accordance with the
fact as at the time of the injury. In such other cases where
there are more than one wholly dependent the death benefit
shall be equally divided between them, and the persons
partly dependent, if any, shall receive no part thereof; if
there is no one wholly dependent and more than one person
partly dependent, the death benefit shall be divided among
them according to the relative extent of their dependency.
Michigan. — Dependents and the extent of dependency shall be de-
termined as of date of accident, and death benefit becomes
fixed at that time. In case of death of one of such depend-
ents, his portion is payable to surviving dependents pro rata.
The following persons are conclusively presumed to be
whoUy dependent:
A wife upon a husband with whom she lives at the time
of his death; a husband upon a wife with whom he lives at
the time of her death; a child or children under the age of
16 years (or over that age if physically or mentally incapaci-
tatad from earning) upon tne parent with whom he is or
they are left at the time of the death of such parent, there
being no surviving parent. In case there is more than one
dependent child, the death benefit is divided equally among
them. In other cases questions of dependency are de-
termined in accordance with the facts as they may be at
the time of the injury.
In case there is more than one person held dependent,
those partially dependent are not entitled to anything. If
there is no one held dependent and more than one person
partly dependent, the death benefit is divided among them
according to the relative extent of their dependency. No
person considered a dependent unless a member of the
family of the deceased or bears to him the relation of husband
or widow or any lineal descendant or ancestor or brother or
sister.
Minnesota. — Who are dependents and allowances to each: (1) Wife
and children presumed wholly dependent. For the pur-
poses of this act, the foUo wing-described persons, viz. : Wife
minor children under the age of 18 years, or those over that
age who are physically or mentally incapacitated from earn-
ing, shall be presumed to be wholly dependent.
(2) Actual dependents: Any dependents named in sub-
division 1; also husband, mother, father, grandmother,
DIGEST OF STATE LAWS. 103
grandfather, sisters, and brothers who were wholly sup-
ported by the deceased workman at the time of his death
and for a reasonable period of time immediately prior thereto
shall be considered his actual dependents, and payment of
compensation shall be made to them in the order named.
(3) Partial dependents: Any dependents named in sub-
division 2 who regularly derived part of their support from
the wages of the deceased workman at the time of his death
and for a reasonable period of time immediately prior thereto
shall be considered his partial dependents, and payment of
compensation shall be made to them in the order named.
Nebraska. — The following persons shall be conclusively presumed to
be wholly dependent for support upon a deceased employee :
A wife upon a husband with whom she is living at the
time of his death; a husband upon a wife with whom he is
living at the time of her death; a child or children under the
age of 16 years (or over said age, if physically or mentally
incapacitated from earning) upon the parent with whom he
is or they are living at the time of death of such parent, there
being no surviving parent. In case there is more than one
child thus dependent, the death benefit shall be divided
equally among them.
Compensation shall be payable under sections 22 and 23
to or on account of any child, brother, or sister, only if and
while such child, brother, or sister is under the age of 16.
No compensation shall be payable under said sections to a
widow unless she was living with her deceased husband at
the time of his death; provided, that a wife or a husband
living in a state of abandonment for more than two years at
the time of the injury, or subsequently, shall not be" a bene-
ficiary under this act. The terms "child" and " children"
shall include step-children and adopted children if members
of the decedent's household at the time of his death, and
shall include posthumous children. If the compensation
payable under said sections to any person shall for any cause
cease, the compensation to the remaining persons entitled
thereunder shall thereafter be the same as would have been
payable to them had they been the only persons entitled to
compensation at the time of the death of the deceased. If
a widow or widower of a deceased employee shall remarry,
then the compensation benefits shall become payable to the
child or children of such widow or widower, if there be any
such child or children; but if there be no such child or
children of such dependent widow or widower, shall not be
affected by such remarriage.
In all other cases, questions of dependency, in whole or in
Eart, shall be determined in accordance with the fact, as the
ict may be at the time of the injury; and in such other cases,
if there is more than one person wholly dependent, the death
benefit shall be divided equally among them, and persons
partly dependent, if any, shall receive no part thereof; if
there is no one wholly dependent and more than one person
partly dependent, the death benefit shall be divided among
them according to the relative extent of their dependency.
104 WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
No person shall be considered a dependent unless he or she
be a member of the family of the deceased employe, or bears
to him the relation of widow, or widower, or lineal descend-
ent, or ancestor, or brother, or sister.
Questions as to who constitute dependents and the extent
of their dependency shall be determined as of the date of the
accident to the employee, and the death benefit shall be
directly recoverable bv and payable to the dependent or
dependents entitled thereto, or their legal guardians or
trustees. No dependent of an injured employee shall be
deemed during the life of such employee a party in interest
to any proceeding by him for the enforcement of collection
of any claim for compensation, nor as respects the com-
promise thereof by such employee.
Nevada. — The following conclusively presumed to be wholly depend-
ent: The surviving spouse, unless it appear that the sur-
vivor had willfully deserted without fault upon the dece-
dent's part; a child or children under 16 years of age (and
over that age if physically or mentally incapacitated from
earning) whether actually dependent for support upon the
parent or not; a parent of a minor entitled to the earn-
ings of the decedent presumed to be dependent for a period
not exceeding four years. In all other cases questions
of dependency in whole or in part shall be determined in
accordance with the fact as the fact may be at the time
of the injury. Step-parents regarded as parents; adopted
children or stepchildren regarded same as if issue of body.
New Hampshire. — A widow, children, or parents, resident of the
State, either wholly or partially dependent on the decedent's
earnings.
New Jersey. — The term " dependent" shall apply to and include any
or all of the following who are dependent upon the deceased
at the time of accident or death, namely: Husband, widow,
parents, grandparents, children, stepchildren, grandchildren,
posthumous children, illegitimate children, brothers, sisters,
half brothers, half sisters. Legally adopted children con-
sidered as natural children. Dependency presumed as to
widow living with husband at time of his decease, and
children under the age of 18 years, stepchildren, and ille-
gitimate children presumed to be dependent when they are
part of decedent's household at the time of his death.
New York. — Surviving wife or dependent husband, surviving child
or children under the age of 18 years, parent, or grand-
parent. If amount payable to surviving wife or dependent
husband and to children under the age of 18 years shall be
less than an aggregate of 66 § per cent of the average wages
of the deceased, then grandchildren or brothers and sisters
under the age of 18 years are included, if dependent upon
the decedent at the time of the accident.
Ohio. — The following persons are presumed to be wholly dependent
upon a deceased employee: Wife, child or children under
16 or over said age if physically or mentally incapacitated
from earning. In all other cases the question of dependency
DIGEST OF STATE LAWS. 105
shall be determined in accordance with the facts in each
particular case.
Oregon. — Widow or invalid widower, minor children under the age
of 16 years; the parent or parents of a workman under the
age of 21 years and unmarried; in the absence of a widow
or widower or child under the age of 16 years, any person
actually dependent upon the decedent.
Rhode Island. — The following persons shall be conclusively presumed
to be wholly dependent:
A wife upon a husband with whom she lives or upon
whom she is dependent at the time of his death; a husband
upon a wife with whom he lives or upon whom he is depend-
ent at the time of her death; a child or children, including
adopted and step children, under the age of 18 years (or
over said age but physically or mentally incapacitated from
earning) upon the parent with whom he is or they are living
or are dependent at the time of the death of such parent,
there being no surviving dependent parent. In case there
is more than one child thus dependent, compensation shall
be divided equally.
In all other cases questions of entire or partial depend-
ency shall be determined in accordance with the fact as the
fact may have been at the time of the injury. If there is
more than one person wholly dependent, the compensation
shall be divided equally among them, and persons partly
dependent, if any, shall receive no part thereof during the
period in which compensation is paid to persons wholly
dependent. If there is no one wholly dependent and more
than one person partly dependent, the compensation shall
be divided among them according to the relative extent of
their dependency.
No person shall be considered a dependent unless he is a
member of the employee's family or next of kin, wholly or
partly dependent upon the wages, earnings, or salary of the
employee for support at the time of the injury.
Texas. — Legal beneficiaries of the deceased employee; the compensa-
tion to be distributed according to the law provided for the
distribution of the property 01 the deceased. Creditors in
the absence of legal beneficiaries.
Washington. — Dependent means any of the following-named relatives
of a workman whose death results from any injury and who
leaves surviving no widow, widower, or child under the age
of 16 years, viz, invalid child over the age of 16 years,
daughter between 16 and 18 years of age, father, mother,
grandfather, grandmother, stepfather, stepmother, grand-
son, granddaughter, stepson, stepdaughter, brother, sister,
half sister, half brother, niece, nephew, who at the time
of the accident are dependent, in whole or in part, for their
support upon the earnings of the workman. Except where
otnerwise provided by treaty, aliens, other than father or
mother, not residing within the United States at the time
of the accident, are not included.
West Virginia. — A widow, invalid widower, child under the age at which
he or she may be lawfully employed in any industry, invalid
106 WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
child over such age, father, mother, grandfather, or grand-
mother, who, at the time of the injury causing death is
dependent in whole or in part for his or her support upon
the earnings of the employee.
Wisconsin. — The following shall be conclusively presumed to be solely
and wholly dependent for support upon a deceased employee :
(a) A wife upon a husband with whom she is living at the
time of his death; (b) a husband upon a wife with whom he
is living at the time of her death ; (c) a child or children un-
der the age of 18 years (or over said age but physically or
mentally incapacitated from earning), upon the parent with
whom he or they are living at the tune of the death of such
parent, there being no surviving dependent parent. In case
there is more than one child thus dependent, the death bene-
fit shall be divided between such dependents in such pro-
portion as may be determined by the commission after con-
sidering the ages of such dependents and other facts bearing
on such dependency.
In all other cases questions of entire or partial dependency
shall be determined in accordance with the fact, as the fact
may be at the tune of the accident to the employee; and in
such other cases, if there is more than one person wholly de-
pendent, the death benefit shall be divided equally among
them, and persons partially dependent, if any, shall receive
no part thereof; and if there is more than one person par-
tially dependent, the death benefit shall be divided among
them according to the relative extent of their dependency.
No person shall be considered a dependent unless a mem-
ber of the family of the deceased employee, or one who bears
to him the relation of husband or widow, or lineal de-
scendant or ancestor, or brother or sister.
DETERMINATION OF AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION AND SETTLEMENT OF
DISPUTES.
Arizona. — Determined either by written agreement between the par-
ties or by arbitration or by reference and submission to the
attorney general; in case of a refusal or a failure of the par-
ties to agree upon a settlement by either of these modes
then by a civil action at law. If employer fails to make or
pay compensation for a period of three months after the
accident, or for two months after the payment of the last
monthly compensation, then the beneficiary may bring an
action to enforce the payment, the judgment of which shall
be for a sum equal to the amount of payments then due
and prospectively due under the provisions of the statute.
The court awarding the judgment shall direct that the judg-
ment be paid ratably in installments, or by agreement of
parties the court may direct that it be paid in lump sum if
the court believes it to be to the best interests of the work-
man.
California. — By release or settlement agreement, which shall be
valid only when it provides for the payment of full compen-
sation in accordance with the provisions of the statute and
DIGEST OF STATE LAWS. 107
approved by the industrial accident commission with whom
it must be forthwith filed ; whereupon the commission may,
of its own motion, or upon application of either party,
without notice, enter its award oased upon such release or
settlement agreement. A settlement agreement must be
in writing, duly executed, attested by two disinterested
witnesses, and must specify the date of the accident, the
average weekly wages of the employee, the nature of the
disability, whether total or partial, permanent or temporary,
the amount paid or due and unpaid to the employee up to
the date of the release or agreement, or both, as the case
may be, if any, the amount of the payments or benefits then
or thereafter to be made, and the length of time that such
payment is to continue; in case of death, the name of the
widow, if anv, the names and ages of all children, if any, the
names of all the dependents, if any, and whether such de-
pendents be total or partial.
In case of dispute, either party may file with the indus-
trial accident commission an application for a hearing. The
commission may hear the controversv or refer it to one or
more referees. Any award or order by the industrial acci-
dent commission may be reviewed by writ of certiorari,
upon the hearing of which the findings and conclusions of
the commission on questions of fact shall be conclusive and
final, and the only questions considersd in the review are
whether or not the commission acted without or in excess of
its powers, or was the order or decision secured by fraud,
or is the order, decision, rule, or regulation, unreasonable,
and whether or not the findings of fact support the order,
decision, or award under review. The industrial accident
commission has full power and authority to adopt reason-
able rules for practice and procedure.
Connecticut. — Volunteer agreements: If an employer and an injured
employee, or in case of fatal injurv his legal representative,
shall, not earlier than two weeks after the date of the injury,
reach an agreement in regard to compensation, such agree-
ment shall by the employer be submitted in writing to the
commissioner, with a statement of the time, place, and
nature of the injury upon which it is based; and if said
commissioner shall find said agreement to conform to the
provisions of this act in every regard he shall so approve it.
Every agreement thus approved shall be filed in the office
of the clerk of the superior court for the county in which the
injury occurred and a copy thereof shall be retained by the
commissioner, and a copy of the same delivered to each of
the parties and thereafter it shall be as binding upon both
parties as an award by the commissioner. Such agreements
shall be subject to subsequent modification as changed con-
ditions may justify, but no modification shall be valid until
approved and filed by the commissioner.
If employer and employee are unable to agree, the matter
is submitted to the commissioner, who makes the award.
Illinois. — Any settlement agreement executed between the parties
within seven days after the injury is presumed to be fraudu-
108 WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
lent, and no employee, person, representative, or beneficiary
shall have power to waive any of the provisions of the
statute with regard to the amount which may be payable,
except after approval by the industrial board.
Unless settled by agreement, all questions are to be de-
cided in the first instance by an arbitration committee of
three members, one to be selected by each of the parties and
the third to be a member or appointee of the industrial board.
The decision of such committee is subject to review by the
industrial board. The decisions of the board, in the absence
of fraud, are conclusive, but subject, however, to review
by the supreme court on questions of law.
Iowa. — Settlement agreements must be filed with the industrial com-
missioner, and be approved by him, and shall be approved
by hun only when terms conform with the provisions of the
statute. In case of dispute, either party may notify the
industrial commissioner, who shall thereupon call for the
formation of a committee of arbitration, consisting of three
persons, one of whom shall be the industrial commissioner,
who shall act as chairman; the other two shall be named
respectively by the two parties. The industrial commis-
sioner has power to review and revise the decision of the
arbitration committee. The decision of the commissioner
may be presented to the district court and a decree in
accordance therewith rendered. There shall be no appeal
therefrom upon questions of fact.
Kansas. —Compensation due under the act may be settled by agree-
ment.
Every agreement for compensation and every award shall
be in writing, signed and acknowledged by the parties or by
the arbitrator or secretary of the committee hereinbefore
referred to, and shall specify the amount due and unpaid by
the employer to the workman up to the date of the agree-
ment or award, and, if any, the amount of the payments
thereafter to be paid by the employer to the workman and
the length of time such payments shall continue.
If compensation be not so settled by agreement: (a) If
any committee representative of the employer and the work-
man exists, organized for the purpose of settling disputes
under this act, the matter shall, unless either party objects
by notice in writing delivered or sent by registered mail to
the other party before the committee meets to consider the
matter, be settled in accordance with its rules by such com-
mittee or by an arbitrator selected by it. (6) If either
party so objects, or there is no such committee, or the com-
mittee or the arbitrator to whom it refers the matter fails to
settle it within 60 days from the date of the claim, the
matter may be settled by a single arbitrator agreed on by
the parties, or appointed by any judge of a court where an
action might be maintained. The consent to arbitration
shall be in writing and signed by the parties and may limit
the fees of the arbitrator and the time within which the
award must be made. And unless such consent and the
order of appointment expressly refers other questions, only
DIGEST OF STATE LAWS. 109
the question of the amount of compensation shall be deemed
to be in issue.
Maryland. — By agreement of the parties, by arbitration, or by the
judge of the circuit court.
Massachusetts. — If the insurer and the injured employee reach an
agreement in regard to compensation, memorandum of it
must be filed with the industrial-accident board and approved
by it. Such approval shall be given only when the terms
conform with trie provisions of the act.
In case of failure to agree, either party may notify the
industrial-accident board, who shall thereupon cah1 for the
formation of a committee of arbitration. The committee of
arbitration shall consist of three members, one of whom
shall be a member of the industrial-accident board and shall
act as chairman. The other two members shall be named,
respectively, by the two parties.
1 he decision is final unless claim for a review before the
board is filed by either party within seven days. If claim
for a review is filed, the board shall hear the parties and may
hoar evidence, revise the decision of the committee, or refer
back for further findings of fact. No parties shall have the
right to a second hearing.
Where proceedings are brought, prosecuted, or defended
without reasonable ground, the committee of arbitration,
industrial-accident board, or any court before whom any
such proceedings are brought under the act may assess the
whole cost upon the offending party.
A memorandum of the agreement, approved by the board,
or an order or decision of the board may be filed with the
superior court, which shall thereupon render a decree in
accordance therewith. There shall be no appeal from such a
decree upon questions of fact.
Michigan. — If employer or insurer of injured employee reach an
agreement, a memorandum of same must be filed with the
industrial accident board and must be final and binding if
approved by the board. The board shall approve such
agreement only when it conforms with the conditions of the
act.
In case of failure to agree, either party may notify
industrial accident board, who shall thereupon call for the
formation of a committee of arbitration which shall consist
of three members, one of whom shall be a member of the
accident board and shall act as chairman.
Hearings to be held at the locality where injury occurred
and decision of committee to be filed with the industrial
accident board. The decision shall be final unless a claim
for a review before the board is filed within seven days.
If claim for review is filed, the board shall promptly review
the decision at such place as the board shall deem advisable.
The findings of fact by the industrial accident board upon
review shall be conclusive, but the supreme court shall have
power to review questions of law involved in determination
of board.
110 WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
Minnesota. — All settlement agreements shall be in accordance with
the provisions of the act, and shall be approved by a judge
of the district court. In case of dispute, either party may
submit claim to a judge of the district court, who is author-
ized to hear and determine such disputes in a summary
manner, and his decisions as to all questions of fact are
conclusive and binding. Decisions on questions of law may
be reviewed by certiorari.
Nebraska. — Parties have the right to settle all matters of compensa-
tion between themselves. A report of such settlements shall
be filed with the employer and with the labor commissioner
within 60 days of such settlement. In case of dispute,
claim may be submitted to arbitration in such manner or
method as may be mutually agreed upon, or claim may be
submitted by either party to the district court, which court
shall have authority to hear and determine the cause as a
suit in equity and enter a final judgment. An appeal may
be prosecuted in accordance with the laws of the State
regulating appeals.
Nevada. — The injured workman, or, in case of death, the parties
entitled to compensation under the act, must file application
with industrial insurance commission, together with a certi-
ficate from the physician who attended the injured person,
and it shall be the duty of the physician to inform the in-
jured workman of his rights under the act and to lend all
necessary assistance in making the application for com-
pensation; and such proof of other matters as required by
the rules of the department, without charge to the workman.
No expressed provision for a hearing or for an appeal is
made by the statute other than the provision giving the
commission power to adopt reasonable and proper rules to
govern its procedure, the nature and extent of the proofs
and evidence, and the method of taking them and furnishing
the same.
New Hampshire. — By agreement between the parties or by an action
at equity. The judgment in such action shall be for a lump
sum equal to the amount of payments then prospectively
due under the act.
New Jersey. — No agreement between the parties for a lesser sum
than that which may be determined by the judge of the
court of common pleas to be due shall operate as a bar to
the determination of a controversy upon its merits, or to
the award of a larger sum, if it shall be determined by the
said judge that the amount agreed upon is less than the
injured employee or his dependents are properly entitled
to receive. In case of dispute, either party may submit a
claim, both as to questions of fact, nature, and effect of the
injuries, and the amount of compensation therefor according
to the schedule provided, to the judge of the court of com-
mon pleas, which judge is hereby authorized to hear and
determine such disputes in a summary manner, and his
decision as to all question of fact shall be conclusive and
binding.
DIGEST OF STATE LAWS. Ill
New York. — The workmen's compensation commission shall have
full power and authority to determine all questions in rela-
tion to claims for compensation. The commission shall
make, or cause to be made, such investigations as shall be
necessary, and upon application of either party shall order
a hearing, and shall make its decision ana award and file
the same in the office of the commission, together with its
conclusions of fact and rulings of law. The decision of the
commission shall be final as to all questions of fact. The
commission may, before making an award, require the
claimant to appear before an arbitration committee ap-
pointed by it and consisting of one representative of em-
ployees, one representative of employers, and either a
member of the commission or a person specially deputized
by the commission to act as chairman, before which the
findings with regard to the claim shall be educed, and by
which it shall be considered and reported upon.
An award or decision of the commission shall be final and
conclusive upon all questions within its jurisdiction, as
against the State fund or between the parties, unless within
30 days after a copy of such award or decision has been sent
to the parties, an appeal be taken to the appellate division
of the supreme court of the third department. The com-
mission may also, in its discretion, where the claim for com-
pensation was not made against the State fund, on the appli-
cation of either party, certify to such appellate division of
the supreme court questions of law involved in its decision.
Such appeals and the questions so certified shall be heard
in a summary manner and shall have precedence over all
other civil cases in such court. The commission shall be
deemed a party to every such appeal, and the attorney gen-
eral, without extra compensation, shall represent the com-
mission thereon. An appeal may also be taken to the court
of appeals in all cases where such an appeal would lie from
a decision of an appellate division, in the same manner and
subject to the same limitations as is now provided in civil
actions. Otherwise such appeals shall be subject to the law
and practice applicable to appeals in civil actions. Upon
the final determination of such an appeal, the commission
shall make an award or decision in accordance therewith.
The commission has power to appoint deputy commis-
sioners with the powers of a commissioner in determination
of claims. If the award requires payment of compensation
otherwise than from the State fund, all payments as required
by the award shall be made directly to the commission or to
a deputy specially authorized to receive the same and dis-
burse it in accordance with its award to the persons entitled
thereto.
Ohio. — The State liability board of awards shall have full power and
authority to hear and determine all questions within its
jurisdiction, and its decision thereon shall be final; provided
that in case the final action of the board denies the right of
the claimant to participate at all in such fund on the ground
that the injury was sell -inflicted or on the ground that the
112 WOKKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
injury did not arise in the course of employment, or upon
any other ground going to the basis of the claimant's right,
then the claimant has the right to appeal to the common
pleas court.
Oregon. — The workman entitled to compensation under the act shall
file with the commission his application together with a cer-
tificate from the physician who attended him, and it shall
be the duty of the physician to inform the injured workman
of his rights under the act and to lend all necessary assistance
in making the application for the compensation and such
proof of other matters as required by the rules of the com-
mission, without charge to the workman. Anyone aggrieved
by the decision of the commission may appeal to the circuit
court by an informal and summary procedure.
Rhode Island. — All settlements and agreements must be filed in the
office of the clerk of the superior court, who shall forthwith
docket and present the same to the justice of the superior
court, and when approved by the justice, the agreements
shah1 be enforceable by said superior court. Such agree-
ment shall be approved by the justice only when its terms
conform with the provisions of the act. In case of dispute,
either party may file in the offices of the clerk of the superior
court a petition, stating the names and residences of the
parties, the facts relating to employment at the time of the
injury, the cause, extent, and character of the injury, the
amount of wages, earnings, or salary received at the time of
the injury, and such other facts as may be necessary and
proper for the information of the court.
Texas. — All questions arising under the act not settled by agreement
between the parties shall be determined by the industrial
accident board. Any interested party who does not consent
to abide by the final ruling and decision of such board of any
disability claim may sue on such claim, or may require suit
to be brought thereon, in some court of competent juris-
diction, and the board shall proceed no further toward the
adjustment of such claim.
Washington. — Where a workman is entitled to compensation under
this act he shall file with the department his application
for such, together with the certificate of the physician who
attended him, and it shall be the duty of the physician to
inform the injured workman of his rights under this act and
to lend all necessary assistance in making this application
for compensation and such proof of other matters as re-
quired by the rules of the department without charge to the
workman.
West Virginia. — The commission hears and determines all questions
within its jurisdiction and its decision thereon is final. But
where the commission in its final action denies the right of a
claimant to participate at all in the fund, on any ground
going to the basis of the claimant's right, then the claimant
may, within 60 days after notice of such final action, apply
for appeal to the supreme court of appeals. The latter
court decides whether or not an appeal shall be granted,
and if granted, hears such appeal.
DIGEST OF STATE LAWS. 113
Wisconsin. — Every compromise of a claim for compensation shal1 be
subject to review by, and may be set aside, modified, or
confirmed by, the commission, upon application made
within one year from the time of compromise.
In case 01 dispute, any party interested may file an appli-
cation in writing with the industrial commission, which will
fix the time for the hearing thereof, hear the testimony, make
and file its findings and its award. Pending the hearing, in
determination of any controversy, the commission shall
have power to order the payment of such, or any part of,
the compensation which is or may fall due, as to which the
party from whom the same is claimed does not deny liability
in good faith. The findings of fact made by the commission
acting within its powers shall, in the absence of fraud, be
conclusive. The order or award shall be subject to review
only by action for such review and shall be set aside only
upon the following grounds: That the commission acted
without or in excess of its powers; that the order or award
was secured by fraud; that the findings of fact by the
commission do not support the order or award.
EXCLUSIVENESS OF REMEDY.
Arizona. — The employee has option after injury either to claim com-
pensation or to sue for damages under the liability law.
California. — When the employer is guilty of gross negligence or willful
misconduct, in which case the employee may, at his option,
either claim compensation under the act or sue at law for
damages. Otherwise the compensation remedy under the
act is exclusive.
Connecticut. — Remedy exclusive.
Illinois. — Remedy exclusive.
Iowa. — Remedy exclusive.
Kansas. — Remedy exclusive.
Maryland. — Remedy exclusive.
Massachusetts. — Compensation remedy is exclusive, but amount may
be doubled in case injury is due to the serious and willful
misconduct of employer or of any person regularly intrusted
with and exercising the powers 01 superintendence.
Michigan. — Remedy exclusive.
Minnesota. — Remedy exclusive.
Nebraska. — Remedy exclusive.
Nevada. — Remedy exclusive.
New Hampshire. — Workman has right of election after injury to
accept compensation under the act or sue for damages under
the liability law.
New Jersey. — Remedy exclusive.
New York. — Remedy exclusive when employee has secured the pay-
ment of compensation as provided in the act.
Oliio. — Employee may sue employer under liability law where injury
results from the willful act of the employer or any of his
officers or agents or from the failure of such employer or any
of his officers or agents to comply with any lawful require-
ment for the protection of the lives and safety of employees.
30003— S. Doc. 419, 63-2 8
114 WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
Oregon. — Workman or his dependents have the right of action for
damages for injury caused by failure of employer to install
or maintain any safety appliance devised or safeguard re-
quired by statute.
Rhode Island. — Remedy exclusive.
Texas. — Remedy exclusive except in case of death which is due to
willful act or negligence of employer, in which case the
latter is liable for damages.
Washington. — If injury or death results to a workman, from deliberate
intention from his employer to produce such injury or death,
the workman or his dependents shall have the privilege to
come under the act and also have cause of action against the
employer as if the act had not been enacted, if in excess of
damage over the amount received or receivable under the act.
West Virginia. — Exclusive remedy.
Wisconsin. — Exclusive remedy.
METHODS OF INSURANCE.
Arizona. — Insurance not compulsory.
California. — Insurance not compulsory. Employers are permitted
under the law to insure in a mutual or a stock company, or
in the State fund, creation of which is authorized by tine
compensation act. Persons entitled to compensation may
proceed against the employer or insurance carrier either
jointly or separately.
Every contract insuring against liability for compensation
must contain a clause to the effect that the insurance carrier
shall be directly and primarily liable to the employee or his
dependents to pay the compensation; that as between the
parties notice to or knowledge of the occurrence of the injury
on the part of the employer shall be deemed notice or knowl-
edge on the part of the insurance carrier. The insurance
contract or policy shall not contain any provisions relieving
the insurance carrier from payment when the employer
becomes insolvent or is discharged in bankruptcy. Where,
after accident, it appears that the employer is insured
against liability of the full amount of compensation payable,
or that may become payable, the employer shall thereupon
be relieved from compensation to such claimant and the
insurance carrier substituted in his place in any proceeding
therefor.
If any insurance policy contains a limitation as to the
compensation payable, such limitation is to be printed in
the body of the policy in bold-face type, and in addition
thereto the remark " Limited compensation policy" shall
be printed on the top of the policy in bold-face type.
No insurance carrier shall insure against the liability of
the employer for damages recoverable at law for the gross
negligence of the employer, which liability exists under the
California statute in addition to the right to compensation.
A State compensation insurance fund is created which,
as declared by the statute, shall, " after a reasonable time
during which it may establish a business, be fairly competi-
DIGEST OF STATE LAWS. 115
tive with other insurance carriers, and it is the intent of the
legislature that said fund shall ultimately become neither
more nor less than self-supporting." Such compensation
insurance fund is to be administered by the industrial acci-
dent commission, with all the powers pi a government body,
of a private insurance carrier, and with the power to dele-
gate to the manager of the State compensation insurance
fund any of its powers, functions, or duties, under State
rules and regulations, and subject to such conditions as it
may from tune to tune prescribe.
Li conducting the compensation insurance fund, the
commission have power to decline to insure any risk in
which the minimum requirements of the commission with
regard to construction, equipment, and operation are not
observed, or which is beyond the safe carrying of the State
compensation insurance fund, but shall not have power or
authority to otherwise refuse to insure any compensation
risk tendered with the premium therefor. The commission
is given power to contract with physicians, surgeons, and hos-
pitals for medical and surgical treatment and the care and
nursing of injured persons entitled to benefits from the fund.
Rates are to be based upon " reserve" and not upon
"assessment," and are to be such as to produce a reasonable
surplus to cover the catastrophe hazard. It may issue
either limited or unlimited insurance contracts. The com-
pensation insurance fund may issue policies covering with
their employees those employers who perform labor inci-
dental to their occupations and those members of the
families of such employers engaged in the same occupation.
Connecticut. — Every employer who does not reject the compensation
act must either furnish to the commissioner satisfactory
proof of his solvency and financial ability to pay directly
the compensation or to insure his full liability in one or both
of the following ways: By filing with the insurance com-
missioner security aggregating the obligations of the act or
by insuring his full liabflity in a stock or mutual company
or association or, by such combination of the above methods
as he may choose, subject to the approval of the insurance
commissioner.
Every insurance policy shall contain a clause that as
between the parties notice and knowledge of the occur-
rence of the injury by the insured shall be deemed notice
and knowledge by the insurer, and that the latter shall in
all things be bound by and subject to judgments of awards
entered against the insured.
No insurance against liability under the act shall be
written unless it cover the entire liability of the employer
and contain an agreement by the insurer that in case the
insured shall become insolvent, or be discharged in bank-
ruptcy, or an execution upon a judgment be returned unsat-
isfied, the claim for compensation may be enforced against
the insurer to the same extent that the insured could have
enforced his claim against such insurer had he paid com-
pensation.
116 WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
Employers who have accepted the act are given authority
to organize mutual insurance associations, but no such
association shall be formed to include employers not in the
same or similar trade or business, or in trades or businesses
with substantially the same degree of hazard of injuries to
employees.
Illinois. — Every employer who elects to provide and pay compensa-
tion under the act must, if required by the industrial board
and subject to its approval, either (1) file proof of his finan-
cial ability to make any normally required payment, or
(2) furnish security guaranteeing the payment of compen-
sation normally required to be paid, or (3) insure his liability
in some authorized corporation, association, or organization,
or (4) make some other provision for securing payment of
the compensation normally required to be paid. If an
employer fails so to do, then he becomes liable for compen-
sation in accordance with the terms of the act, or for dam-
ages in the same manner as if he had not elected its com-
pensation features, at the option of the injured employee
or his representative. " Normal" liability and compensa-
tion "normally" required to be paid are to be measured by
the experience of the employer during two years preceding
demand by the board, and if there is no such individual
basis of experience, then by general experience under similar
circumstances.
Any contract of employment providing for relief benefit
or insurance whereby the employee is required to pay any
premium for insurance against the compensation provided
lor in the act shall be null and void.
Iowa. — Every employer subject to provisions of the act shall either
furnish proof satisfactory to t>he insurance department and
the industrial commissioner of the solvency and financial
ability to pay the compensation or deposit with the insur-
ance department security satisfactory to such department
and the industrial commissioner, or shall insure his liability
in some corporation, association, or organization approved
by the State department of insurance.
Groups of employers by themselves or in an association
with any or all of their workmen may form insurance asso-
ciations, subject to reasonable conditions and restrictions
which may be fixed by the State insurance department.
All insurance policies shall provide that as between the
parties notice to and knowledge of the occurrence of injury
or death on the part of the employer shall be notice and
knowledge on the part of the insurer, and shall be bound by
every agreement, award, or judgment rendered against the
employer. All insurance policies shall be payable, not-
withstanding the insolvency or bankruptcy of the employer,
and the workman is given the first lien upon such moneys.
Commissions for placing or renewing insurance under
the act are limited to 15 per cent of the premium charged.
Kansas. — Insurance not compulsory where the payment of compen-
sation to the workman is insured, by a policy or policies,
at the expense of the employer, the insurer shall be subro-
DIGEST OF STATE LAWS. 117
gated to the rights and duties under this act of the em-
ployer, so far as appropriate.
Maryland. — Employers accepting the act are required to insure their
employees in some casualty company organized under the
laws of the State of Maryland, or authorized to do business
in the State, except that employers employing not less than
1,500 employees may establish an insurance fund from sums
contributed by himself and his employees.
Massachusetts. — The Massachusetts Employees' Insurance Associa-
tion is created by the statute. All employers who accept
the act must become subscribers, unless they insure the
liability to pay compensation in a liability insurance com-
pany authorized to do business within the Commonwealth.
Every private company writing insurance must file with
the insurance department its classification of risks and pre-
miums relating thereto, and any subsequent proposed clas-
sifications or premiums, none of which shall take effect until
the insurance commissioner has approved the same as
adequate for the risk to which they respectively apply.
Michigan. — The employers accepting the act must either furnish
satisfactory proof to the State industrial board of the
employer's solvency and financial ability to pav directly to
his employees compensation and benefits provided for; or
insure against such liability in any employers' insurance
association organized under the laws of the State of Michigan ;
or insure against such liability in any employers' liability
company authorized to take such risk in the State of
Michigan; or request the insurance commission of the State
of Michigan to assume the administration of the disburse-
ment of the compensation except the furnishing of medical
aid.
The board has the right, from time to time, to review and
alter its decision in approving the election of the employer
to adopt any one of the foregoing methods of payment, it in
his judgment such actions necessary are desirable to secure
and safeguard such payments to employees.
Every contract of insurance shall be deemed to be made
subject to the provisions of the compensation act and pro-
visions that are inconsistent with the act are declared to be
void. Companies not approved by the commissioner of
insurance are forbidden to enter into any such contract for
insurance or compensation.
Any person entitled to compensation under the act shall
have the right to enforce in his own name the liability of any
insurance company or of any employers' association, or
commissioner of insurance who may nave insured the lia-
bility for such compensation.
Every employer against whom liability may exist for
compensation under the act may, with the approval of the
industrial accident board, be relieved therefrom by depositing
the present value of the total unpaid compensation for which
such liability exists in a trust company or by the purchase
of an annuity.
118 WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
The insurance commission is to assume charge of levying
and collection of premiums and dividends necessary to pay
amounts due employees or their dependents, and the expense
of conducting the administration of such funds as soon as
five or more employers having on their pay rolls an aggregate
number of not less than 3,000 employees, request him so to
do. Neither the commissioner of insurance nor the State of
Michigan is to become liable for the payment of claims for
compensation beyond the extent of the funds so collected.
It is the intention that the amounts raised shall ulti-
mately become neither more nor less than self-supporting
and ths premiums and asssssments levied shall be subject to
readjustment from time to time by the commissioner of
insurance.
The commissioner of insurance is to classify the estab-
lishments of works of such employers and groups in accord-
ance with the nature of the business and the probable risk
of injury, determine the amount of the premiums or assess-
ments to be paid by such employers, prescribe when and in
what manner they shall be paid and change the amount
thereof, both in respect to any and all employers, from time
to time as circumstances may require, the condition of their
respective quarters, establishments or places of work, and in
respect to safety.
At the beginning of each fiscal year the commissioner of
insurance shall collect for the required payment premiums
in .such amounts as shall, together with any balance in the
accident fund, in his judgment and subject to the approval
of the industrial accident board, be sufficient for the pay-
ment of all sums which may become due and payable to
the employees of any employer, together with the expenses of
administering such fund during the following year.
In case of default in the payment of premiums the sum due
shall be collected by an action at law in the name of the
State. The defaulting employer shall, during the period of
the default, be liable to suit by the injured workman or his
dependents as if he had not elected to become subject to the
act. The accident fund shall pay to such injured workman
or his dependents the amount of compensation less the
amount collected from the employer in such action.
Provision is made for the withdrawal of the employer at
the end of a year.
Minnesota. — If the risk of the employer is carried by any insurer
doing business for profit, or by any insurance association
or corporation formed of employers, or of employers and
workmen, to insure the risks under this act, operating by
the mutual assessment or other plan or otherwise, then^ in
so far as policies are issued on such risks they shall provide
for compensation for injuries or death according to the
full benefits of part 2 of this act.
Such policies shall contain a clause to the effect that as
between the workman and the insurer, that notice to and
knowledge by the employer of the occurrence of the injury
shall be deemed notice and knowledge on the part of the
DIGEST OF STATE LAWS. 119
insurer; that jurisdiction of the employer for arbitration
or other purposes shall be jurisdiction of the insurer, and
that the insurer will in all things be bound by and subject
to the awards rendered against such employer upon the
the risks so insured.
Such policies must provide that the workman shall have
an equitable lien upon any amount which shall become
owing on account of such policy to the employer from the
insurer and in case of the legal incapacity or inability of
the employer to receive the said amount and pay it over
to the workman or dependents, the said insurer will pay
the same direct to said workman or dependents, thereby dis-
charging all obligations under the policy to the employer
and all of the obligations of the employer and insurer to
the workman; but such policies shall contain no provisions
relieving the insurance company from payment when the
employer becomes insolvent or discharged in bankruptcy
or otherwise, during the period the policy is in force, ii the
compensation remains owing.
The insurer must be one authorized by law to conduct
such business in the State of Minnesota, and authority is
hereby granted to all insurance companies writing such
insurance to include in their policies in addition to the
requirements now provided by law the additional require-
ments, terms, and conditions in this section provided.
Nebraska. — Insurance is not compulsory, but any employer may
insure in any liability company or mutual insurance asso-
ciation authorized to do business in the State. No policy
of insurance against liability shall be made unless same
cover the entire liability of the employer, and contain an
agreement by the insurer that in case the employer shall
be or become insolvent or an execution for a judgment for
compensation be returned unsatisfied the claim may be
enforced against the insurer to the same extent that the
employer could have enforced his claim against such
insurer had he paid compensation. Every contract of
insurance being made subject to the provisions of the act.
Provisions inconsistent with the provisions thereof are
void.
Nevada. — The act creates a State insurance fund in which all em-
ployers coming under the act are compelled to insure.
The State of Nevada shall not be liable for the payment of
any compensation, save and except 'from the State insur-
ance fund, to be derived from the payment of premiums.
The expenses of administration are limited to 10 per cent
of the amount of premiums paid into the fund. The insur-
ance rates are fixed by the statute, with power to the indus-
trial commission to increase or decrease the same as experi-
ence and conditions demand. The commission shall have
the power to classify employments with respect to their
degree of hazard; to determine the amount of risk to same,
based upon the pay roll and number of employer in each
of such classes of employment sufficiently large to provide
an adequate fund for the compensation provided for in
120 WOKKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
the act; and to create a surplus sufficiently large to guar-
antee a satisfactory insurance fund from year to year.
The industrial commission may increase the classifica-
tion of risks and premium rates of an establishment or
works which may be, by reason of poor or careless manage-
ment, unduly dangerous in comparison with other like
establishments or works.
New Hampshire. — The employers accepting the act must either
satisfy the commissioner of labor of his financial ability to
comply with its provisions or file with the commissioner
bonds conditioned on the discharge by such employer of
all liability incurred under the act.
New Jersey. — Insurance not compulsory.
New York. — Insurance under the New 'fork act is compulsory in some
one of the following ways: (1) By insuring and keeping in-
sured the payment of such compensation in the State fund, or
(2) by insuring and keeping insured the payment of such com-
pensation with any stock corporation or mutual association
authorized to transact the business of workmen's compen-
sation insurance in this State. If insurance be so effected in
such a corporation or mutual association, the employer shall
forthwith file with the commission, in form prescribed by it,
a notice specifying the name of such insurance corporation
or mutual association together with a copy of the contract
or policy of insurance. (3) By furnishing satisfactory proof
to the commission of his financial ability to pay such com-
pensation for himself, in which case the commission may, in
its discretion, require the deposit with the commission of
securities of the kind prescribed in section 13 of the insur-
ance law, in an amount to be determined by the commission,
to secure his liability to pay the compensation provided in
this chapter.
If an employer fail to comply with this section, he shall be
liable to a penalty for every day during which such failure
continues of $1 for every employee, to be recovered in an
action brought by the commission.
The commission may, in its discretion, for good cause
shown, remit any such penalty, provided the employer in
default secure compensation as provided in this section.
Failure to secure compensation shall have the effect of
enabling the injured employee or his dependents to maintain
an action in the courts for damages on account of such injury,
and in such action the defendant may not plead as the de-
fense that the injury was caused by negligence of a fellow
servant, or that the employee assumed the risk of his employ-
ment, or that his injury was due to contributory negligence
of the employee.
An employer contributing to the State fund is relieved
from all liability under the act, and the persons entitled to
compensation shall have recourse only to the State fund.
An employer otherwise insured is not thereby relieved from
liability for compensation, and a person entitled to compen-
sation may proceed either against the employer or insurance
carrier.
DIGEST OF STATE LAWS. 121
Every policy of insurance must contain a provision setting
forth the right of the compensation commission to enforce the
policy for the benefit of the persons entitled to the compen-
sation insured by the policy.
Every policy shall contain a provision that as between the
parties to or knowledge of the occurrence of the injury on
the part of the employer shall be deemed notice or knowledge
on the part of the insurance carrier, and the insurance carrier
shall in all things be bound by orders, findings, decisions, or
awards rendered against the employer.
Every policy shall contain a provision to the effect that
the insolvency or bankruptcy of the employer shall not
relieve the insurance carrier from liability.
A State insurance fund is created to be administered by
the compensation commission. Ten per cent of the premi-
ums collected from the employers insured in the fund shall
be set aside by the commission for the creation of a surplus
until such surplus amounts to the sum of $100,000, and there-
after 5 per cent of such premiums until such time that, in the
judgment of the commission, such surplus shall be sufficiently
large to cover the catastrophe hazard. The commission shall
also set up and maintain a reserve adequate to meet antici-
pated losses and carry all claims and policies to maturity.
The entire expense of the administration of the State in-
surance fund shall be paid in the first instance by the State
out of moneys appropriated therefor. All expenses so in-
curred by the State shall be refunded to the State treasurer
out of such State insurance fund.
The workmen's compensation commission shall have power
to rearrange the groups of industries, determine the hazards
of the different classes, and fix the rates of premiums. The
commission may adopt a system of schedule rating in such
a manner as to take account of the peculiar hazard of each
individual risk.
Under the statute authorizing the creation of mutual com-
panies these companies are given power to write not only
compensation risks, but also insure their members against
public liability. These associations must have at least 40
members and 2,500 employees.
Ohio. — The State insurance fund is created and insurance in such fund
is compulsory. The State liability board of awards is re-
quired to classify occupations with respect to their degree
of hazard and determine the risks of the different classes and
fix the rates of premiums for the risks for a sum sufficiently
large to provide an adequate fund for the compensation pro-
vided for under the act and to maintain the State insurance
fund from year to year. The rate of premium is required to
be the lowest possible consistent with the maintenance of a
solvent State insurance fund and the creation and mainte-
nance of a reasonable surplus for the payment of legitimate
claims.
The board is required to keep an accurate account of the
money paid in premiums by each of the several classes of
occupations or industries and the disbursements on account
122 WORKMEN *S COMPENSATION.
of injuries and deaths of employees thereof; and is also re-
quired to keep an account of money received from each indi-
vidual employer and the amount disbursed from the State
insurance fund on account of injuries and death of the em-
ployees of such employer. Ten per cent of the money here-
tofore paid into the State insurance fund and 10 per cent of
all that may hereafter be paid into such a fund shall be set
aside for the creation of a surplus until such surplus shall
amount to the sum of $100,000, after which time the sum of
5 per cent of all the money paid into the State insurance
fund shall be credited to such surplus fund unless such sur-
plus, in the judgment of the board, shall be sufficiently
large to guarantee the State insurance fund from year to
year.
Any employer who neglects to comply with the require-
ments with regard to insurance is made liable to the injured
employee for full damages without the common-law defenses,
or the injured employee, at his option, may claim compen-
sation from the insurance fund, whereupon such fund may
recover total amount of its liability, with 50 per cent addi-
tional as a penalty, from the employer.
Oregon. — The State insurance fund is created to be contributed to by
the employers and workmen who elect to accept the act.
The State appropriated $50,000 to the fund, and annually
donates one-seventh of the total amount of contributions.
Every employer under the act is authorized and required
to retain from the moneys earned by each of his workmen
who is subject to the act a sum equal to five-tenths of 1 per
cent of the moneys so earned in each calendar month, and,
in any event, at least 25 cents each month; and is further
required to pay the sum so retained to the industrial accident
commission, with an additional sum equal to six times such
an amount.
Rhode Island. — Insurance not compulsory.
Texas. — Employers accepting the act are required to insure in either
the Texas Employers' Insurance Association, created under
the terms of the compensation act, or in any mutual or stock
company. Insurance associations or companies are required
to file with the commissioner of banking and insurance classi-
fication of premiums, none of which shall take effect until
the commissioner of banking and insurance has approved
same as adequate to the risks to which they respectively
apply and not higher than charged by the Texas Employers'
Insurance Association. Mutual companies must have at
least 50 subscriptions and not less than 2,000 employees.
Washington. — The State insurance fund is created, to which all em-
ployers under the act must contribute. The statute fixes
the premium rates for each group of industries enumerated
or olirects that each class make as an initial payment into the
accident fund one-fourth of the premium of the next suc-
ceeding year and one-twelfth thereof at the close of each
month after 1911, with the proviso that any class having
sufficient funds credited to its account at the end of the first
DIGEST OP STATE LAWS. 123
three months or any month thereafter to meet the require-
ments of the accident fund shall not be called upon for such
month.
It is the intent that the fund created shall ultimately
become neither more nor less self-supporting, exclusive of the
expense of administration.
West Virginia. — The State insurance fund is created, to which those
who accept the act must contribute. The commission is
given power to determine the risk of the different classes
and fix the rates of premium in each class according to the
risks of the same, to provide an adequate fund for the com-
pensation required under the act, and to create a surplus
sufficiently large to guarantee a workmen's compensation
fund from year to year, with the proviso that the rates so
fixed shall not exceed a maximum of $1 on each $100 of the
gross annual pay roll of each employer in any class. The
premiums of the State fund are contributed to in the pro-
portion of 90 per cent by the employers and 10 per cent
by the employees.
Wisconsin. — The employers accepting the act are required to insure
payment of the compensation in either a stock or mutual
company authorized to do business in the State, unless
exempted from such insurance by the industrial commis-
sion. The commission may make such exemption upon
proof by the employer as to his financial ability to pay
compensation, which provision may be revoked upon 10
days' notice in writing. Every insurance company doing
business within the State shall file with the industrial com-
mission its classifications of risks and rates of premium
relating thereto. Discrimination between insured having
risks in the same class and degree of hazard by the granting
of any rebate or deduction in such rate of premium, or by
any change of classification for the purpose of granting such
deduction, or in any other manner, is forbidden. Any
employer against whom liability may exist for compensa-
tion may, with the approval of the industrial commis-
sion, be relieved therefrom by either depositing the present
value of the total unpaid compensation for which such
liability exists or by the purchase of an annuity.
NO. 2. RULES ADOPTED BY STATE BOARDS OR COMMISSIONS.
Under the statutes creating the special boards charged with the
duties of administering the law the boards are given power to make
rules for the enforcement of such laws. The various boards have
adopted rules pursuant to such authority, and the following rules
are published as illustrating the extent to which this authority
aids the State boards or commissions in bringing about prompt and
inexpensive adjustments and fair dealing between employer and
employee :
MASSACHUSETTS.
RULE No. 1. — Manner of giving notice by employer of acceptance of
the act.
If personal service is not made of the notices required by sections
20 and 21 of Part IV, chapter 751 of the acts of 1911, and the amend-
ments thereto, said notices may be given by posting the same at one
or more of the principal entrances to the factory, shop, or place
of business of the employer and in each room where labor is employed,
said notices to be printed or typewritten.
Supplement to rule 1. — It has been represented to the industrial
accident board that it is possible that employees may be engaged
for labor away from the office or headquarters of the subscriber, or
may be employed in more than one place or office, and that in these
cases personal notice is not always possible or practical. To meet
this situation the board has passed the following supplement to
rule No. 1 :
Where the same employees are employed in more than one room
in a building, or in various places, or where employers are engaged
in such business as that of managing office buildings, and personal
service of the notices required by sections 20 and 21, Part IV, chap-
ter 751 of the acts of 1911, and amendments thereto, is not made,
said notices can be served by posting the same at one or more of
the principal entrances to each building so managed or where labor
is employed, or by posting the same in a conspicuous place near
any time clock or other registering device which employees in any
such building are required to use, or by posting the same at the
entrance to the office of the janitor of said building, or by posting
the same at the place where the employee is hired.
RULE No. 2. — Manner of giving notice by employee to employer.
In each instance the notice shall be served upon the employer, or
upon one employer if there are more employers than one, or upon
any officer or agent of a corporation if the employer is a corporation,
by delivering the same to the person on whom it is to be served, or
by leaving it at his residence or place of business, or by sending it
124
BULES OF STATE BOARDS. 125
by registered mail addressed to the person or corporation on whom
it is to be served, at his last known residence or place of business.
(Sec. 5, Part I, ch. 751, of the acts of 1911, and amendments
thereto.)
RULE No. 3. — Report of accidents ~by association or insurance companies
to the board.
That the association and liability insurance companies report to
it all accidents within five days after receipt of notice thereof by them
from any subscriber, by sending to the industrial accident board a
list or brief statement of the same.
RULE No. 4. — Additional copy of employee's claim for compensation
to be sent to insurance association or company.
An employee making a claim for compensation under this act shall
furnish the association or insurance company against whom said
claim is made with a copy thereof by mail or otherwise forthwith,
upon the filling of the same with the industrial accident board. This
rule shall be without prejudice to any rights acquired by the filing of
said claim with the ooard under the provisions of Part II, section
23, chapter 751, of the acts of 1911, and amendments thereto, or
by other provisions of said act.
RULE No. 5. — Insurance association and companies to notify indus-
trial accident board of employers who insure or cease to insure.
That the insurance association and all liability insurance compa-
nies shall notify the industrial accident board of the names and ad-
dresses of all employers who insure then* liability under the work-
men's compensation act, notice to be given forthwith upon the issu-
ance of such insurance and a further notice to be given when employers
cease to be so insured.
RULE No. 6. — Agreements between the insurer and employee.
Every agreement in regard to compensation under this act is sub-
ject to approval by the industrial accident board, and a memorandum
of the same mast be filed with the board, whether said agreement is
written or oral, and whether it is made by one or both parties, or in
the form of a receipt. Any weekly payment or settlement under the
act, whether purporting to be final or otherwise, may be reviewed by
the board. (Sec. 20, Part II, and sees. 4 and 12, Part III, ch.
751, of the acts of 1911, and amendments thereto, and rule adopted
by the board.)
" The above paragraph of this rule shall be written or printed at
the head of every agreement regarding compensation, and of every
receipt taken by the insurer from the employee.
RULE No. 7. — Employer to file notice of insurance with ike board.
Every employer shall file with the industrial accident board a copy
of the form of notice, including the signature thereto, which he has
given to his employees that he has insured under this act.
126 WOKKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
RULE No. 8. — Employer to notify employees of change of insurer.
Every employer shall notify his employees of any change of insurer
by serving or posting a new " notice to employees/' stating the name
of the new insurance company or association insuring his liability
under this act, and filing a copy of such notice with the industrial
accident board.
MICHIGAN.
RULE 1. — What accidents to le reported.
All accidents which result in disability continuing for more than
one full working day shall be reported to the board; all accidents
involving the loss of a member shall be so reported irrespective of
the question of disabilitv resulting; all accidents causing death shall
be reported to the board.
RULE 2. — When to be reported.
All employers subject to the compensation law shall make reports
to the board weekly of all accidents to their employees which come
within the classes of accidents designated in Rule 1. Such reports
shall be on and in accordance with the requirements of the weekly
report blank, "Form No. 5-a," of said board.
RULE 3. — Fifteenth-day report.
In all cases where the disability resulting to the injured employee
continues for more than 14 days, a further report, on and in accord-
ance with the requirements of report blank, "Form No. 6," shall be
made to the board on the 15th day of such disability: Provided, That
in all cases where the accident causes the loss of a member or death,
such report on Form No. 6 shall be made to the board within 10
days after such accident or such death, as the case may be.
RULE 4. — Immediate report reguired.
In all cases where a claim for compensation is filed with the board
by an injured employee, if it appears that the report required by
Rule 3 has not been made and rued by the employer on account of
disagreement as to the continuance of the disability or for any other
reason, the board shall thereupon require such employer to forth-
with file a report of the accident on and in accordance with the
requirements of blank Form No. 6 of said board.
RULE 5. — Memorandum agreement.
When an agreement in regard to compensation is made between
the employer and the injured employee, the same shall be in writing
on and in accordance with Form No. 10 of the board, and such agree-
ment, together with the supplemental report in accordance with the
requirements of Form No. 7, shall be immediately filed with the
board.
RULES OF STATE BOARDS. 127
RULE 6. — Supplemental report.
In cases where the employer and employee fail to reach an agree-
ment in regard to compensation and either of such parties files appli-
cation with the board for arbitration of the matter, such employer
shall, within 15 days after the filing of such application for arbitration,
make and file with the board a supplemental report of the accident
on and in accordance with the requirements of Form No. 7 of said
board.
RULE 7. — Receipts for compensation.
After an agreement relating to compensation is made between the
employer and the injured employee, and approved by the board;
ana also in cases where an application for arbitration has been filed
and an award of compensation made by the board, receipts for
weekly payments of compensation made upon Form No. 11, signed
by such employee or his dependents, shall be filed in the office of the
board monthly.
RULE 8. — Final report.
When the disability of the injured employee terminates; and also
when the payment of compensation for the loss of a member, or in
case of death, has been fully made, final report thereof shall be filed
with the board, on and in accordance with Form No. 7-a, together
with settlement receipt on and in accordance with Form No. 12,
signed by the employee or his dependents, as the case may be.
RULE 9.
Wherever the word "employer" is used in the foregoing rules,
numbered from 1 to 8, inclusive, it shall be construed to cover either
the employer, or the insurance company carrying the risk, or the
Commissioner of Insurance, as the case may be.
Adopted October 9, 1912. Lansing, Mich.
INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT BOARD,
R. L. DRAKE, Secretary.
CALIFORNIA.
The following rules shall go into immediate effect under the pro-
visions of chapter 399, Laws 1911, and shall govern in any matter or
proceeding relating to the administration of said act by the industrial
accident board.
RULE I. — Preliminary.
Chapter 399, Laws 1911, may be cited as the "Employers' liability
act/' and these rules as the "Industrial accident board rules." All
words and phrases used in these rules shall have the same meaning as
is given to the same words and phrases in sections 3 to 31 of the em-
ployers' liability act.
128 WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
RULE II. — Office of industrial accident board.
Office shall be open during such hours as are fixed by law for the
transaction of public business. The board may from time to time
hold public sessions in such other places in the State as convenience
may require.
RULE III. — Posting of notices.
Employers shall immediately post, and keep posted, all notices
required to be posted by the industrial accident board in conspicuous
places in their offices and works where such notices are most likely
to be seen and read by their employees.
RULE IV. — Reports.
Employers and physicians attending injured employees shall,
within 10 days after the happening of an accident causing a loss of
industrial time lasting more than one week, make a full report thereof
to the industrial accident board. In any case where a compromise
of liability for accident is made directly by the employer and em-
ployees, a full report of such compromise shall be immediately made
by the employer to the industrial accident board.
RULE V. — Parties to proceedings.
When a controversy arises concerning any matter over which the
industrial accident board has jurisdiction, any party to the contro-
versy may apply to the board for relief. The party making such
application shall be known as the " applicant." All other persons
necessary to enable the board effectively and completely to adjudi-
cate upon and settle all questions involved shall be made parties to
the application and shall oe known as the " respondents."
An application on behalf of the dependents of a deceased workman
for the settlement of a controversy may be made by the legal per-
sonal representatives (if any) of the deceased workman on behalf of
such dependents or by the dependents themselves. All such de-
pendents shall be joined in the application either as applicants or
respondents.
An application for the settlement of a controversy respecting
medical attendance or the burial expense of a workman who leaves
no dependents shall be made by the legal representatives (if any) of
the deceased workman. If there are no such personal representa-
tives, the application may be made by any creditor to whom any
such expenses are due, and all other such creditors known to the ap-
plicant must be joined as respondents. If the amount awarded is
not sufficient for the payment of such expenses in full, it shall be
divided in proportion to the respective amounts found to be due.
RULE VI. — Joinder of parties.
All persons may be joined as applicants in whom any right to any
relief in respect oJ or arising out of the same transaction or series of
transactions is alleged to exist.
All persons may be joined as respondents against whom the right
to any relief is alleged to exist, whether jointly, severally, or in the
RULES OF STATE BOARDS. 129
alternative, and the board will of its own motion order that any ad-
ditional party or parties be joined, when it deems their presence
necessary.
RULE VII. — Pleadings.
(1) Application. — The applicant shall file a written application
for relief with the industrial accident board, containing the names of
all parties, a general statement of the claim in controversy, the facts
relating thereto, and of the relief sought to be obtained. The board
will thereupon fix a time and place for the hearing thereof, which
shall not be more than 40 days after such filing and will serve a
copy of such application, together with the notice of hearing, upon
each adverse party. Either party shall have the right to be present
at any hearing, in person or by attorney or any other agent, and
present such testimony as shall be pertinent to the controversy.
(2) Answer. — When any respondent desires to disclaim any interest
in the subject matter of the claim in controversy, or considers that
the application is in any respect inaccurate or incomplete, or desires
to bring any fact, paper, or document to the attention of the board
as a defense to the claim or otherwise, he must, within 10 days after
the service of the application, file with or mail to the board his answer,
setting forth the particulars in which the application is inaccurate or
incomplete and the facts upon which he intends to rely. A copy
thereof must likewise be served upon each party to the proceedings.
Any material allegation contained in the application and not con-
troverted in the answer will be deemed to be admitted.
RULE VIII. — Service of pleadings.
Any pleading or document may be served either by delivering to
and leaving with the person to be served a copy thereof, or by mailing
to such person, by United States registered mail, a copy thereof in a
sealed envelope, with the postage thereon fully prepaid, addressed
to such person at his last known place of business or residence.
Where a pleading or document is served by mail, it shall, unless the
contrary be proved, be deemed to have been served at the time when
the letter containing the same would have been delivered in the ordi-
nary course of post. Proof of such mailing shall be prima facie proof
of service.
RULE IX. — Awards.
An award may be rendered in favor of or against any one or more
of the applicants or respondents, according to their respective rights
and liabilities. In every award the compensation to be paid to each
person shall be set forth separately.
RULE X. — Examiner.
^ Whenever convenience may require, the industrial accident board
will appoint an examiner, whose duty it shall be to aid the board in
making settlements between employers and employees, conduct in-
vestigations, take testimony, and to make report of any and all
30003— S. Doc. 419, 63-2 9
130 WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
matters relating to the claim in controversy to the board. The
board may at any time, and with or without notice to either party,
cause testimony to be taken, or any other investigation to be made.
RULE XI. — Depositions.
Depositions may be taken before any notary public or other officer
authorized to administer oaths, and, when so taken, used upon any
hearing where the convenience of the witnesses requires. Such
depositions shah1 be taken upon notice in the same manner as in
courts of record.
RULE XII. — Stenographic reporter.
Either party may, upon payment of the costs attendant thereon,
require that the testimony produced at any hearing be taken down
and transcribed by a shorthand reporter.
RULE XIII. — Amendments.
The board, or any member thereof, may at any time, with or
without notice, upon good cause shown, permit any amendment
to any pleading or open up any default.
The -board may amend or modify or vacate any order or award
upon motion of either party or upon its own motion. The moving
party shah1 serve upon all other parties to the proceeding a notice
of such motion five days prior to the time when the same is to be
heard, unless otherwise ordered by the board or a member thereof.
RULE XIV. — Extension of time.
The board, or anv member thereof, may, either with or without
notice, grant extensions of time within which to comply with any
rule upon good cause shown, and may likewise grant adjournments
of hearings.
RULE XV. — Stipulations.
Parties to a controversy may stipulate the facts in writing, and
the board may thereupon make its order or award based upon such
stipulation.
RULE XVI. — Exceptions.
At any hearing had before the board, or before any examiner
appointed by it, a note shall be made of any question of law raised
or exception taken and of the facts in evidence in relation thereto.
RULE XVII. — Appeals.
Any party aggrieved may, within 30 days from the date of the
award, me with the industrial accident board an application, in writ-
ing, for a review of such award, stating generally the grounds upon
which a review is sought, the points upon which he relies, and the
facts in evidence relating thereto. A copy of such application shall
RULES OF STATE BOARDS. 131
at the same time be served by the appellant upon all adverse parties.
The adverse party or parties may, within 10 days thereafter, file
with the board an answer to such application for review, stating
generally his objections, his points, and the facts in evidence in rela-
tion thereto. The board will thereupon prepare and certify a tran-
script of the testimony taken and transmit the same, together with
all documents and papers on file in the matter, to the superior court.
It is hereby ordered that the foregoing rules be, and the same are,
adopted as the rules governing the industrial accident board, and for
the regulation of practice, and that the same go into effect forthwith.
INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT BOARD,
A. J. PILLSBURY, Chairman.
WILL J. FRENCH.
WILLIS I. MORRISON.
AARON L. SAPIRO, Secretary.
SAN FRANCISCO, October 25, 1911.
OHIO.
|As amended Oct. 6, 1912.]
RULE 1. — Office hours.
[Relates to office hours of the board.]
RULE 2. — Sessions of the board.
Sessions of the board will be held regularly at the office of the board
in the city of Columbus, beginning at 10 a. m. of each business day,
and continuing until the business of the day is completed; provided,
that the sessions may be held at any other place within the State
should the business to be transacted seem to require it.
RULE 3. — Forms prescribed.
Printed forms of all notices, applications, proofs, certificates, etc.,
necessary for perfecting any claim before the board will be furnished
free of cnarge by the board. Such forms must be used in all cases.
RULE 4. — Injury not resulting in death, notice of.
An employee who has been injured in the course of his employment
and who contemplates filing an application for an award, shall, within
one week from receiving such injury, notify or cause notice to be given
the board of the time, place, and nature of his injury and the name
of his employer. Forms of such notices can be obtained from the
employer. Such notices should be mailed to " State liability board
of awards, Columbus, Ohio."
Upon receiving such notice the board forthwith will mail to the
injured employee proper forms and blanks for his use in perfecting
his claim, and notify the employer thereof. Unless such notice is
given, no appli cation for an award will be considered by the board.
132 WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
RULE 5. — Injury resulting in death, notice of.
When death results from an injury received by an employee in the
course of his employment, the provisions of rule 4 shall apply, except
that notice of death must be given by the attending physician, under-
taker, employer, executor, administrator, or a beneficiary, within one
week from tne time of death.
RULE 6. — Docketing and numbering.
Notices provided for by rules 4 and 5 shall be numbered when
received by the board and entered upon a docket kept for the pur-
pose, and each paper thereafter filed in connection with the claim
shall be given the same number as the original notice.
RULE 7. — Application — Injury.
Application for awards in all cases of injury not resulting in death
must be made by the party injured not less than two weeks nor more
than three months after the injury is received. Where the applicant
claims money to pay for medical and hospital services or medicines,
he shall authorize the payment to be made directly to the person or
persons rendering such services, etc., in all cases where he has not
already paid for the same.
RULE 8. — Failure to make application.
In all cases of injury where medical services, etc., have been ren-
dered and furnished to the injured employee, and such injured em-
ployee fails or neglects to make application for money to pay for the
same within the time prescribed by rule 7, or having made application
and an award for such medical services, etc., having been made,
payable to the applicant, and the applicant is not found at the address
given in his application within 30 days after the making of the award,
the money may be paid by the board, upon a satisfactory showing of
the reasonableness thereof, to the person or persons rendering said
services, etc.
RULE 9. — Waiver of right to compensation.
In all cases of injury where the preliminary notice provided for by
rule 4 hereof has been given, and no application for compensation has
been made within the time provided by rule 7 hereof, it shall be the
duty of the clerk to notify the injured person by mail at his last known
residence of his noncompliance with said rule 7, inclosing him a copy
thereof, and should no application be filed within two weeks after the
mailing of such notice, the board may consider that such injured
person has waived the right of compensation and make a finding
accordingly.
RULE 10. — Application — Death.
Application for awards in all cases of injury resulting in death
must be made by the executor, administrator, or beneficiary of the
deceased, or by the attending physician, or undertaker where there is
no beneficiary, not less than two weeks nor more than six months
after the death of the injured employee.
RULES OF STATE BOARDS. 133
RULE 1 1 . — Modification of rules.
The provisions of rules 4, 5, 7 and 8 will not be relaxed, unless, in
the judgment of the board, the failure to observe their provisions
was occasioned by want of knowledge of their existence, and unless
their strict enforcement will result in hardship and injustice. In
such instances the board will, upon application, extend the time for
filing.
RULE 12.— Proof.
The proof of all claims shall be made by affidavit as far as possible.
Bu the board will, if in its judgment it is deemed necessary, require
medical or other examinations and may take oral testimony of wit-
nesses, the claimant being notified of the time, place, and manner of
taking the same. The board will also hear any oral testimony offered
by an applicant. Depositions of witnesses may also be filed by an
applicant, but notice of the time and place of taking the' same must
be given the board prior to their taking. Any duly authorized
inspector of the board shall have the right at any time either before
or after an award to make an investigation as to the cause and extent
of the injury for the purpose of ascertaining facts. The proof in
every instance shall be such as to show clearly the jurisdiction of the
board, the rights of the applicant to an award, and the amount thereof.
RULE 13. — Medical examination, refusal to submit to.
In case the board, or its chief medical examiner, orders an injured
employee to submit to examination by its local medical examiner,
and such examination is refused, or shall in any way be obstructed,
his right to have his claim for compensation considered shall be
barred during the period of such refusal or obstruction.
RULE 14. — Employee's intention to leave locality, notice to be given of.
An injured employee who desires to leave the locality in which he
has been employed, during treatment of his injury, and goes into
another locality of the State, or into another State, shall either report
to the local medical examiner of the board for examination, or notify
the board of such intention to leave, and send them with such notice
a certificate from the attending physician, which shall state the exact
nature of the injury, together with the length of time of disability
present.
RULE 15. — Physician's reports, refusal to fill out.
In case an attending physician refuses to fill out an attending
physician's report or itemize his physician's fee bill, or make affidavit
to the same, on his claim for medical services rendered an injured
applicant, his claim for medical services shall not be considered
during the period of such refusal.
134 WOBKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
RULE 16.— Duty of cleric.
The clerk shall keep a record of the time of filing all notices, appli-
cations, affidavits, statements, depositions, medical and other forms
of proof, and when the proof is seemingly complete shall assign the
same for hearing. He shall prepare a list of the claims so assigned
for each hearing day, which shall contain an abstract of the proof on
the questions necessary to be determined by the board, and such
other information as he may deem necessary to include therein, and
shall provide a copy of such list for each member of the board and
for the secretary. Such original lists shall be preserved by him and
filed in his office with the papers in the claims to which they refer.
RULE 17. — Hearings.
Applications for awards will be heard on Mondays, Wednesdays,
and Fridays of each week, unless one of such days should be a legal
holiday, in» which event the day following will be the hearing day.
Applicants may appear before the board either in person or by agent
or attorney. If no appearance is made, the application will be
heard and disposed of upon the proofs on file, if sufficient, or may be
continued until a future day, or indefinitely, for attendance of appli-
cant or counsel, or for the furnishing of further proof.
RULE 18. — Notice of hearings.
When the clerk assigns an application for hearing he shall forth-
with give the applicant notice by postal card of the time and place
of hearing, and at least three days shall elapse between the date of
mailing such notice and the date of the hearing, unless the claim to
be heard involves only a claim for medical services, medicines, or
hospital services, hi which event no notice of the tune and place of
hearing need be given. But the right to notice as provided herein
may be waived by the applicant at the time of filing nis application;
and if waived, the claim will be heard as soon as may be after the
completion of the proof.
RULE 19. — Awards.
Ali awards other than for medical, nurse, and hospital service and
for funeral expenses will be payable in biweekly installments, and
will be paid directly to the applicant or beneficiary in all cases except
where such applicant or beneficiary is an infant of tender years, or
under some legal disability, in which event the award will be paid
as provided by the general code, sections 1465-1468 (sec. 29 of the act),
for the payment of benefits in case of death.
In case of temporary disability or partial impairment of earning
capacity, the board, at the time of making the award, will fix a time
at which payments shall cease, unless the injured employee shall
make it appear to the board that he is still incapacitated as a result
of the injury for which the award was originally made. In such
case a modification of the terms of the original award will be made.
RULE 20. — -Payment of lump sums.
Payment of awards in lump sums will be made only when, in a
supplemental proceeding, it is made to appear to the board that it
would be to the mutual advantage of the applicant or beneficiaries
and to the State insurance fund.
EULES OF STATE BOARDS. 135
RULE 21. — Continuance.
The policy of the board will be to determine all questions brought
before it as speedily as possible; but continuances of hearings for
any reasonable cause may be had upon the request of the applicant.
The board will continue hearings on its own motion only when the
volume of business is such as to demand it, or when the proof is not
satisfactory or is insufficient.
RULE 22. — Modification of awards.
The board, having continuing power and jurisdiction over an
award, may make changes or modifications of its former findings,
either upon its own motion or upon the application of the beneficiary
or beneficiaries. If on its own motion, it must first notify the
beneficiary or beneficiaries. Upon application being made for a
modification of an award, it shall be docketed and set for hearing
as in the case of original applications.
RULE 23. — Change in rules.
The rules of the board are subject to alterations or amendment at
any time; and the board will make additional rules whenever, in
its judgment, the same are necessary.
The rule of rating.
[Resolution.]
Be it resolved, That in pursuance of authority conferred upon the
State Liability Board of Awards by section 17 of an act of the General
Assembly of Ohio entitled "An act to create a state insurance
fund for the benefit of the injured and the dependents of killed em-
ployees, and to provide for the administration of such fund by a
State liability board of awards/' passed May 31, 1911, and approved
by the governor June i5, 1911 (102 O. L., 524, General Code, sec.
1465-53), all employments or industries of the State of Ohio are
hereby classified according to their respective hazards, and rates for
the several classes are hereby determined and fixed in accordance
with the risks of the same, as set forth in the following schedules and
rules:
The determining factors in fixing the rate to be charged an indi-
vidual industry or employment employing five or more workmen or
operatives shall be (a) the nature of the employment, (b) its casualty
experience, and (c) the wage expenditure thereof. The use of these
factors shall be governed by the rules herein set forth:
RULE 1. — Defining injury.
The term "injury" used herein shall include every personal injury
not purposely self-inflicted which has been sustained (received) by
employees in the course of their employment and wherever occurring,
provided such injury prevents the person injured from returning to
his or her employment within two or more days after the occurrence
of the accident.
136 WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
RULE 2. — Preferred risks.
Employments or industries showing an experience of 10 or fewer
injuries to the $100,000 of wages expended shall be known as pre-
ferred risks of tjieir respective classes and to them shall be applied
the rate appearing in the schedule set forth under rule 13 herein.
RULE 3. — Experience risks.
Employments or industries showing an experience of more than 10
injuries to the $100,000 of wages expended shall be known as ex-
perience risks and the rate therefor shall be ascertained by using the
printed rate fixed for preferred risks as a basis, and adding 3 per cent
thereof thereto for each injury in excess of 10 to the $100,000 of
wages expended.
RULE 4. — Death or total-disoMlity risks.
Employments or industries whose casualty experience includes the
death or permanent total disability of one or more employees as the
result of injuries not purposely self-inflicted and which have been
sustained (received) in the course of their employment wherever
occurring, shall have added to the premium for each six months'
period, as determined by rules 2 and 3, 20 per cent thereof and $25
lor each such death or permanent total disability until such time as
the sum of $2,000 has been paid into the State insurance fund for
each such death or permanent total disability, except as provided in
rule 6 herein.
RULE 5. — Basis of average experience.
In determining the rate for any individual employment or industry
its average casualty experience shall be taken as a basis for the appli-
cation of the preceding rules if such employment or industry has
been in operation for three years.
If it has been in operation for more than six months and less than
three years, then the experience for the time actually in operation
shall be taken as a basis.
If it is beginning operations or has been in operation for less than
six months, then it shall be entitled to the rate fixed for preferred
risks plus 25 per cent thereof.
But in all employments or industries which have been subscribers
to the State insurance fund continuously for one year or longer, the
casualty experience as shown by the books of this department shall
be used as a basis in determining the rate to be charged.
RULE 6.
The premium of an employer who has not been, a subscriber to the
State insurance fund for two consecutive semiannual periods and
whose experience for the preceding three years discloses the death
or permanent total disability of one or more employees as the result
of injuries sustained (received) in the course of employment and not
purposely self-inflicted and wherever occurring, shall be computed
EULES OF STATE BOARDS. 137
according to the rules herein, except rule 4, and there shall be added
thereto 20 per cent and $25 for one death or permanent total disability
as disclosed in the experience as herein defined, and for each additional
death or permanent total disability 10 per cent and $25, but in no-
case because of this rule shall be added more than $4,000 for any
six months' period for any single industry or employment.
RULE 7. — How computed.
The premium of any employment or industry shall be computed
upon the estimated expenditure of wages for the ensuing period of
six months, and an adjustment of the amount actually due shall be
made at the end of each such period in accordance with the actual
expenditure of wages.
RULE 8. — Minimum premium.
The minimum premium shall be $15.
RULE 9. — Composite rule.
If an employer conducts more than one kind of employment or
industry on the same premises, then each employment of industry
shall have its respective class rating; but if no separate record is kept
showing the actual wage expenditure of each employment or industry
so conducted, then upon adjustment of actual premium at the end of
the six months' period the entire pay roll shall be rated according to
the highest rate.
RULE 10. — Clerical and office rate.
If clerical and office employees pursue their employment in rooms
or apartments separate from other employees engaged in more haz-
ardous employment, then that part of the wage expenditure for such
clerical and office help which is in excess of 10 per cent of the total
wage expenditure shall be subject to the clerical and office schedule
rates.
RULE 11. — What wages included.
»
The wage expenditure upon which premium is computed shall
include all salary, wages, or compensation paid to all employees,
excluding only the salary, wages, or compensation paid to employees
engaged wholly as traveling salesmen and salaries paid to officers of
corporations as such. If the employer is a partnership, then the
salaries or wages of partners shall be excluded.
RULE 12.
[Resolution of August 15, 1912.]
The rules and rates herein adopted shall be subject to the terms of
the resolution adopted August 15, 1912, which is hereby reaffirmed
and made a part hereof.
NO. 3. STATEMENT TYPICAL OF METHODS OF ADMINISTRATION
PURSUED BY STATE BOARDS OR COMMISSIONS.
WISCONSIN.
Hon. CYRUS W. PHILLIPS,
Thirty-third Floor, Metropolitan Tower,
New York City.
DEAR SIR: This is in reply to yours of December 27.
First. The Industrial Commission of Wisconsin administers not
only the compensation act, but all the laws having to do with the
relation of employer and employee, including safety, apprenticeship,
arbitration and mediation, free employment, child lapor, women's
labor, and labor statistics. Second, method of administration of
compensation act: We require the employer to furnish an accident
report on the eighth day after the accident. This report gives in
detail the facts of accident, wage, and probable period of disability.
This report is docketed, and a subsequent report is required every
four weeks during disability. These subsequent reports show what
payments are made, and the final disposition of tne case. Subse-
quent reports are made by insurance companies where the employer
is insured. Employers are instructed to pay compensation according
to the provisions of the act, and when disability ceases to file a final
receipt with the commission. The accident report and subsequent
reports are scrutinized in the office in order to determine that com-
pensation is paid as provided by law. By this method about 95 per
cent of the compensation cases are taken care of directly between the
employer and employee without any further action on the part of the
commission. We find the method gives very good satisfaction so far
as the workmen are concerned. There is no red tape, and the workmen
get their compensation promptly. In case of disagreement between
the employer and workman we furnish a simple form of application for
compensation for the workman to fill out. He fills out this applica-
tion and sends it in to the commission. The commission serves a
copy of the application on the respondent and a simple form of
answer is furnished. The answer is to be made in five days. At that
time the case is set for hearing at some point convenient to the par-
ties. A member of the commission or one of its deputies takes the
testimony. The testimony is submitted to the full commission at
Madison and the case decided. By this method of administration
we have been able to dispose of all cases promptly and at a minimum
of expense to the State. From September 1, 1911, to November 1,
1913, compensation was completely paid in 5,627 cases; of this num-
ber, 142 were heard by the commission, the balance of the cases being
settled directly between the employer and employee. The expense
to the commission for the administration of the compensation act,
including all printing and postage, from September 1, 1911, to Decem-
ber 31, 1913, inclusive, is $18,000, approximately.
138
METHODS OF ADMINISTRATION. 139
The commission, by its deputies, has investigated all suspicious
cases. It has held many meetings with employers and employees,
instructing them in the law and how to carry out its provisions. It
has issued many bulletins, explaining the law and the methods of the
commission, fn this way it has kept both the workman and the
employer well informed and at the same time interested in working
out the compensation problems.
Our law is elective, but for the month of December, 1913, 95.9 per
cent of all accidents happening in the industries of Wisconsin were
under compensation.
The medical claims seldom come before the commission for con-
sideration. The employer hires the physician, and the payment of
the physician is a matter of contract. Our law applies to the State
and to all municipalities, and in such case's we have frequently been
required to pass upon physicians' bills. We have had little trouble
in adjusting these matters so far.
If I have not covered this matter sufficiently for your purpose, I
shall be glad to answer any further questions.
Very truly, yours,
INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION,
C. H. CROWNHART, Chairman.
No. 4. FORMS USED BY STATE BOARDS.
MASSACHUSETTS.
Form No. 1.
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT, INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT BOARD,
Boston, Mass.
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES.
As required by chapter 751 of the Acts of 1911, Commonwealth of Massachusetts,
and amendments thereto, entitled "An act relative to payment to employees for
personal injuries received in the course of their employment, and to the prevention
of such injuries."
This will give you notice that I (we) have provided for payment to our injured
employees under the above act by insuring with the
Insurance Co.
(Insert address of company here.)
Date
(Name of employer.)
Address
(City or town.) (Street and number.)
Form No. 2.
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT, INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT BOARD,
Boston, Mass.
NOTICE OF CLAIM OF COMMON LAW RIGHTS.
..191..
To
(Name of employer.)
This is to notify you that I claim my right of action at common law to recover
damages for personal injuries. This notice is given to you under the acts of 1911,
chapter 751, section 5, Part I, and amendments thereto.
(Signature of employee.)
Address
(City or town, street and No.)
Form No. 3.
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT, INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT BOARD,
Boston, Mass.
NOTICE OP WAIVER OF RIGHTS UNDER COMMON LAW PREVIOUSLY CLAIMED.
..191.
To employer.
This is to notify you that I waive my rights under the common law previously
claimed by former notice, and now claim my rights under the workmen's compensation
act. This notice is given to you under the Acts of 1911, chapter 751, section 5, Part I,
and amendments thereto.
(Signature of employee.)
Address
(City or town, street and No.)
140
FORMS USED BY STATE BOARDS. 141
Form No. 4.
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT, INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT BOARD,
Boston, Mass.
Whenever any weekly payment has been continued for not less than six months, the liability therefor
may in unusual cases be redeemed by the payment of a lump sum by agreement of the parties, subject
to the approval ol the industrial accident board. (Sec. 22, Part II, ch. 751, Acts of 1911, and amendments
thereto.)
AGREEMENT FOR REDEEMING LIABILITY BY PAYMENT OF LUMP SUM.
Received of
(Name of insurer.)
the lump sum of dollars
and cents, making in all, with weekly payments already
received by me, the total sum of dollars
and cents, a weekly payment having been continued for not
less than six months. Said payments are received in redemption of the liability
for all weekly payments now or in the future due me under the Massachusetts
workmen's compensation act, for all injuries received by me on or about the
day of , 191.., while in the employ
of , subject to
(Name of employer and address.)
the approval of the industrial accident board.
Witness my hand this day of , 191. .
Witness
(Name.) (Name of employee.)
Address
(City or town.) ' (City or town.)
(Street and number.) (Street and number.)
Form No. 5.
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT, INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT BOARD.
Boston, Mass.
NOTICE THAT AN EMPLOYER HAS CEASED TO BE A SUBSCRIBER.
Section 21, Part IV, chapter 751, Acts of 1911, as amended by section 16, chapter
571, Acts of 1912, provides that when an employer ceases to be a subscriber, he shall,
on or before the day on which his policy expires, give notice thereof in writing or
print to all persons under contract of hire with him, and he shall file a copy of said
notice with the Industrial Accident Board. In case of the renewal of the policy, no
notice is required. Following is the form:
Notice.
This is to give you notice that I (we) have ceased to be a subscriber in any insur-
ance company, under chapter 751, Acts of 1911, and amendments thereto, and that
the policy formerly held by me expired
or is to expire
(Name of employer.)
Address
(City or town, street and No.)
Form No. 6.
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT, INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT BOARD.
Boston, Mass.
NOTICE TO INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT BOARD THAT AN INJURED EMPLOYEE HAS REFUSED
TO SUBMIT HIMSELF TO AN EXAMINATION.
You are hereby notified that
(Name of employee.)
" " "( Street" and No". ) " " " (City "or Town, j
who was injured on or about while in the employ of
(Date.)
at
(Name of employer.) (Place.)
142 WOBKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
has refused to submit himself to an examination, as. required under the provisions of
section 19, Part II, chapter 751 of the acts of 1911, and amendments thereto.
(Name of insurance association or company.)
Per
191
(City.)
Form No. 7.
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT.
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Industrial Accident Board. Rooms 201-208
Pemberton Building, 12 Pemberton Square, Boston, Mass.
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEE FROM INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT BOARD RELATIVE TO HIS REFUSAL
TO SUBMIT HIMSELF TO AN EXAMINATION.
To
"(Street and No.) (City or town.)
The
(Name of insurance company.)
has notified the industrial accident board, under date of 191 . ,
that you have refused to submit yourself for examination, as required by section 19,
Part II, chapter 751, Acts of 1911, and amendments thereto. Your attention is called
to the terms of the act which provides:
' ' After an employee has received an injury, and from time to time thereafter * * *
he shall * * * submit himself to an examination by a physician or surgeon
* * * furnished and paid for by the association or subscriber. The employee
shall have the right to have a physician provided and paid for by himself present at
the examination. If he refuses to submit himself for the examination, or in any way
obstructs the same, his right to compensation shall be suspended, and his compensa-
tion during the period of suspension may be forfeited."
INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT BOARD,
By
Form No. 8.
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT, INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT BOARD,
Boston, Mass.
Every agreement in regard to compensation under this act is subject to approval by the industrial acci-
dent board, and a memorandum of the same must be filed with the board, whether said agreement is written
or oral, ana whether it is made by one or both parties, or in the form of a receipt. Any weekly payment or
settlement under the act, whether purporting to be final or otherwise, may be reviewed by the board.
(Sec. 20, Part II, and sees. 4 and 12, Part III, ch. 751 of the acts of 1911, and amendments thereto, and Rule
No. 6 adopted by the board.)
, employee.
, insurer.
AGREEMENT IN REGARD TO COMPENSATION.
We, , residing at ....
(Name and address of injured employee.)
city or town of and the
(Name and address of insurance association or company.)
have reached an agreement in regard to compensation for the injury sustained by
said employee while in the employ of
(Here insert name and address of employer. )
(Here insert tho time, including hour and date of accident, the place where it occurred, the nature and
cause of injury, and other cause or ground of claim.)
The terms of the agreement follow:
(Here state the sum per week agreed upon subject to the terms of the act.)
(Witness.) (Name of injured employee.)
(City or town, street, and number.) (Name of insurance association or company.)
FOBMS USED BY STATE BOARDS. 143
Form No. 9.
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT, INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT BOARD,
Boston, Mass.
NOTE.— This daim is to be filed with the industrial accident board and may be sent by mail. At the
time of filing, a copy thereof should also be sent by the employee to the insurance association or company.
The claim should be made within six months after the occurrence of the injury. (Ch. 751, Part II, sec. 15,
and sec. 23, as amended by acts of 1912, ch. 571, sec. 5.)
CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION FOR INJURY.
This is to notify you
(Name of association or company with which employer is insured.)
that I claim compensation from you under the workmen's compensation act, chapter
751, acts of 1911, and amendments thereto, for personal injury sustained while in the
employ of
, of
(Name of employer.) (Street and number.)
The time of my injury was. .
(City or town.)
(Here state date and time of day as near as possible.)
The place of injury was
(State name or description of building, or place, where injury was sustained.)
The cause x of my injury was
(Describe cause of injury.)
The nature of my injury is as follows:
(Describe injury with such exactness as possible.)
(Signature of injured employee.)
(Street and number.)
(City or town.)""
(Date of making this claim.)
t If it is claimed that the injury was caused by the serious and willful misconduct of the employer, or of
any person regularly intrusted with or exercising the powers of superintendence, it is requested that it be
stated in this claim for compensation, setting forth in the alleged cause, in general terms, in what the serious
and willful misconduct of the employer or superintendent consisted.
Section 14 of Part III of this act provides that if any proceedings are brought, prosecuted, or defended
under this act without reasonable ground, the whole cost of the proceeding shall be assessed upon the party
wno has so brought, prosecuted, or defended them.
Form No. 10.
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT, INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT BOARD,
Boston, Mass.
Under sections 15, 16, and 17, Part II, chapter 751, Acts of 1911, and amendments thereto, notice of the
time, place, and cause of the injury must be given to the employer or the association or the liability in-
surance company, as soon as practicable after the happening thereof. The following is a form of the notice
to be given under the above sections:
NOTICE OP INJURY.
This is to notify you
(Name of employer or insurance association or company.)
that on the day of , 191 , at about . . o'clock
,1 received personal injury while in your employ in the city (town) of
(a. m. or p. m.)
in the
(Name or description of building or place of employment.)
and that the accident was caused to me by reason of
(Describe cause of injury.)
(Name of employee.)
(City or town.)
Address
(Street and number.)
144 WOKKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
Form No. 11.
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT, INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT BOARD,
Boston, Mass.
, employee.
, insurer.
REPORT OF COMMITTEE ON ARBITRATION.
The arbitration committee appointed under the provisions of section 7, Part III,
chapter 751, Acts of 1911, and amendments thereto, having investigated the claim
of
V
being case No on the files of the industrial accident board, report
as follows:
(Here will follow report.)
Form No. 12.
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT, INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT BOARD,
Boston, Mass.
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OP CLAIM BEFORE FULL BOARD.
To the Industrial Accident Board, Boston, Mass.
The undersigned, as provided in Part III, sections 7 and 10, chapter 751 of the
Acts of 5911, and amendments thereto, makes application for a review of the findings
of the committee on arbitration in the claim of
v ,
This claim for a review is based on the following grounds:
,191--.
Note. — "No party shall as a matter of right be entitled to a second hearing on any
matter of fact."
Form No. 13.
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT, INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT BOARD,
Boston, Mass.
NOTICE ASSESSING COST OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE ARBITRATION COMMITTEE UPON
PARTY PROSECUTING OR DEFENDING SAME WITHOUT REASONABLE GROUNDS.
, employee.
, insurer.
To
You are hereby notified that the proceedings before the
(Industrial accident board, or arbitration committee, as case may be.)
on the above-entitled claim, have been determined by said committee, or board,
to have been by you without reasonable grounds, and
(Prosecuted or defended.)
that the costs, amounting to $ , are assessed against you.
Respectfully,
INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT BOARD,
Or ARBITRATION COMMITTEE,
By
FORMS USED BY STATE BOARDS. 145
Form No. 14.
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT, INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT BOARD,
Boston, Mass.
Every agreement in regard to compensation is subject to approval by the industrial accident board,
and a memorandum of the same must be filed with the board whether said agreement is written or oral
and whether it is made by one or both parties, or in the form of a receipt. Any weekly payment or settle
ment under the act, whether purporting to be final or otherwise, may be reviewed by th'e board. (Sec-
20, Part II, and sees. 4 and 12, Part III, ch. 751 of the Acts of 1911, and amendments thereto, and rule
adopted by the board.)
RECEIPT ON ACCOUNT OF COMPENSATION.
Received of
(Name of insurer.)
the sum of dollars,
and cents, being the proportion of my weekly wages for the period
from the day of , 191.., to the
day of , 191 . ., under the Massachusetts workmen's compensation
act, subject to review by the industrial accident board.
(Employee.)
(Street and" No.)
(City or town.)
Form No. 15.
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT, INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT BOARD,
Boston, Mass.
Every agreement in regard to compensation under this act is subject to approval by the industrial accl-
dent board, and a memorandum of the same must be filed with the board, whether said agreement is
written or oral, and whether it is made by one or both parties, or in the form of a receipt. Any weekly
payment or settlement under the act, whether purporting to be final or otherwise, may be reviewed by
the board. (Sec. 20, Part II, and sees. 4 and 12, Part III, ch. 751 of the Acts of 1911, and amendment's
thereto, and Rule No. 6 adopted by the board.)
SETTLEMENT RECEIPT.
Received of
(Name of insurer.)
the sum of ' dollars
and cents, making in all, with weekly payments already received
by me, the total sum of dollars
and cents, in settlement of compensation under the Massachusetts
workmen's compensation act, for all injuries received by me on or about the
day of , 191 .., while in the employ of
(Name of employer, city or town, street and number.)
subject to approval and review by the industrial accident board.
Witness my hand this day of , 191. ..
Witness
(Name.) (Name of employee.)
Address
(Street and number.) (Street and number.)
(City or town.) (City or town.)
Form No. 16.
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT, INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT BOARD,
Boston, Mass.
, employee.
, insurer.
NOTICE OF FAILURE OF PARTIES TO REACH AN AGREEMENT.
To the Industrial Accident Board, Boston, Mass.
I , respectfully notify
(Name of party giving notice.)
you in accordance with section 5, Part III, of said act, that the above-named parties
have failed to reach an agreement in regard to compensation, and request a com-
mittee of arbitration.
30003— S. Doc. 419, 63-2 10
(Name of party giving notice.)
(Address, street and number, city or town.)
(Date of notice.)
146 WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
MICHIGAN.
EMPLOYER'S WRITTEN ACCEPTANCE.
[Act No. 10 of Public Acts, extra session, 1912.]
Industrial Accident Board, Lansing, Mich.:
Take notice that the undersigned employer of labor in Michigan accepts the pro-
visions of act No. 10 of Public Acts, extra session, 1912.
Number of employees
Location of place of employment
(If more than one plant, place of business, or work place, state each fully.)
Nature of employment
(If more than one kind, state each fully, with location.)
Method of providing for compensation adopted by the undersigned
(State whether mutual
insurance [give name], insurance company [give name], State insurance commissioner, or carry own risk.)
Dated at , this day of , 19 ...
By
(P. O. address.)
NOTE. — If employer wishes to accept the provisions of the above law, this notice must be signed by the
employer and filed with the industrial accident board. When so filed, it becomes immediately binding
on the employer. If employer is a corporation, the notice should have the corporate name and seal affixed
and be signed by an officer having authority to do so.
CERTIFICATE.
To Industrial Accident Board, Lansing, Mich.:
GENTLEMEN: This certifies that
(Name of firm.)
of is insured by
(Address.)
of ,
covering the obligations imposed upon said insured by act No. 10 of Public Acts of
1912, extra session, commonly known as the workmen's compensation law; that
said insurance is written upon and in accordance with our policy form No. or letter
, being the same in every respect as the policy contract form filed by the
undersigned company with the industrial accident board (on and in accordance "with
our blank form of policy No. or letter and our indorsement written upon
and in accordance with our blank indorsement form No filed by the under-
signed company with your board).1 All changes that may hereafter be made by the
company in such contract of insurance will be immediately reported to your board.
The location 2 and character of the business operations covered by said insurance
are as follows:
This certificate is furnished to comply with the requirements of the industrial
accident board.
Dated at Michigan, this dav of . .
191..
(Name of company.)
By
(Name and title of person executing certificate.)
1 If the policy form covers without an attached rider, erase matter in parentheses above; but if the rider
and policy are' both used let matter in parentheses stand and erase corresponding matter, so as to express
the fact.
2 If more than one location, so state; and if business is of more than one character, state facts with sub-
stantial accuracy.
FORMS USED BY STATE BOARDS. 147
Date received File No. of accident
(Do not fill in.) (Do not fill in.)
Michigan Industrial Accident Board.
FIRST REPORT OF ACCIDENT.
1. Name of employer
2. Address of employer
3. Nature of business
4. Name of person injured
5. Address of injured
6. Occupation of injured 7. Nationality.
8. Sex 9. Age 10. Date of accident.
11. State amount of weekly wage *
12. Did injured person elect not to come under law?
13. Place of accident, in detail
14. Cause and manner of accident
15. Nature and extent of injury
16. Did you supply medical attention?
] 7. Name and address of physician r
18. Was injured taken home or to hospital? '.
(if hospital, give name and location.)
19. Signature of person making out report
20. Position 21. Date of report
* If piecework, give average earnings; if hourly rate is given, state number of hours per day.
INSTRUCTIONS.
The report called for in this blank is required to be made only in cases involving the loss of a member,
or death, or disability continuing for more than 14 days.
The time for making this report in cases where the accident involves the loss of a member, or death, is
within 10 days after the accident. Where the accident results in disability only, this report is to be made
on the fifteenth day after the accident.
In case the accident causes the loss of a member, state exactly what, and the precise point of amputation:
For example, the index finger of the right hand at the second joint, or the left arm at the elbow; the right
eye, etc.
Answer the questions on this blank fully. Incomplete or indefinite reports will be returned for correction.
Date received File No. of accident
(Do not fill in.) (Do not fill in.)
Michigan Industrial Accident Board.
SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT OF ACCIDENT.
1. Name of employer
2. Address of employer
3. Name of injured person
4. State whether injury resulted in death, or in temporary, partial, or total disa-
bility
5. If at hospital, give name and location
6. If not yet resumed work, state probable period of further disability
7. Did you furnish all medical aid required during first three weeks?
8. Amount of compensation paid to date 9. No. of weeks
10. Has injured employee returned to work? .
11. If so, give date 12. Date of accident
13. If injury resulted in death, give names, ages, relationship, and address of all
dependents:
Name. Age. Relationship. Address.
14 . Signature of person making report
15. Position Date of report.
The report called for in this blank is required to be made one month after first report is sent in. Use this
form for final report if death results during interim.
INSTRUCTIONS.
In case the accident causes the loss of a member, state exactly what, and the precise point of amputation:
For example, the index finger of the right hand at the second joint, or the left arm at the elbow; the right
Answer th e questions on this blank fully. Incomplete or indefinite reports will be returned for correction.
148 WORKMEN 's COMPENSATION.
NOTICE TO EMPLOYER OF CLAIM FOR INJURY.
[Under act No. 10 of Public Acts, extra session, 1912. Employers' liability end workmen's compensation
law.]
To
(Write name of employer plainly on above line.)
(Write address of employer plainly on above line.)
You will take notice that according to the provisions of act No. 10 of Public Acts,
extra session, 1912 hereby makes claim for compensation
for injury received by while in your employ.
Name of employee
Post-office address :
The accident occurred the day of , 191 . . , at
, Michigan.
The nature of the injury is as follows:
Signature
Address
Dated at , this day of ,191...
NOTE.— This notice should be filled out by injured employee or some one in his behalf. In case of death
of employee notice is to be filled out by dependent. Notice should be served within 30 days of accident on
employer by delivering a copy of the above notice to employer personally or by registered mail.
Fill out in duplicate, hand or mail one copy to employer, mail the other copy to the industrial accident
board, Lansing, Mich.
AGREEMENT IN REGARD TO COMPENSATION.*
We,
(Name of injured employee.)
residing at city or town at
and ,
(Name of employer, insurance company, or commissioner of insurance.)
have reached an agreement in regard to compensation for the injury sustained by said
employee while in the employ of
(Name and address of employer.)
The time, including hour and date of accident, the place where it occurred, the
nature and cause of injury, and other cause or ground of claim are as follows:
The terms of the agreement follow :
(Here state the sum per week agreed upon, subject to the terms of the act; also wages earned by injured
at time of accident.)
Witness:
(Name of injured employee.)
(Name of employer, insurance company,
or insurance commissioner.)
By
Dated at , this day of ,19
*NOTE.— If the employer, or the insurance company carrying such risk, or commissioner of insurance, as
the case may be, and the injured employee reach an agreement in regard to compensation under this act,
a memorandum of such agreement shallbe filed with the industrial accident board, and if approved by it
shall be deemed final and binding upon the parties thereto. Such agreement shall be approved by said
board only when the terms conform to the provisions of this act. (Section 5, Part III.)
FORMS USED BY STATE BOARDS. 149
Date received File No. of accident
(Do not fill in.) (Do not fill in.)
Michigan Industrial Accident Board.
FINAL REPORT OF ACCIDENT.
1. Name of employer
2. Address
3. Name of person injured
4. Occupation
5. Wages
6. Total amount of compensation paid
7. Number of weeks
8. Total medical and hospital cost
(Exclusive of services of company surgeon.)
9. Date payment completed
10. Date of accident
11. Date of return to work
12. Signature of person making report t
13. Position
14. Date of report
STIPULATION AND WAIVER OF ARBITRATION.
Applicant,
V.
Respondent (s).
The facts in this case being undisputed and the only matter in difference between
the parties hereto being the construction and application to said facts of the work-
men's compensation law, being act No. 10, Public Acts 1912, extra session, and the
parties hereto desiring to obtain a decision of said matter by the full board without
resorting to arbitration, do hereby stipulate and agree as follows:
1. That the accident to the employee, upon which the claim for compensation in
this cause is based, occurred on the day of 19. .in the town of
county of. State of Michigan,
and that the same arose out of and in the course of his employment. That the char-
acter and nature of the injury and the result thereof is as follows:
(State in detail the nature of the injury, disability, or death resulting, etc.)
2. That the facts relating to the wages of
said employee are as follows:
If average weekly wage is undisputed, so state; if disputed, state all material facts
relating to same
3. The other material facts in said cause not included in paragraphs 1 and 2 are as
follows:
4. That the arbitration of the matters in difference between the parties hereto,
provided for in said workmen's compensation law, be and the same is hereby waived,
and the decision of said matters is hereby submitted to the industrial accident board,
sitting as a full board, the same as if this cause had proceeded to arbitration under
said, aw, and the decision on arbitration therein had been appealed from and said
cause thereby brought before the full board on appeal from such decision. It is
further stipulated and agreed that the decision of said board in this cause pursuant
to this stipulation, and based upon the facts set forth herein shall be valid and binding,
and shall have the same validity, force, and effect as if said cause had proceeded to
arbitration in due course, and was brought before the full board on appeal duly taken
from the decisiofc of an arbitration committee therein.
150 WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
In witness whereof the parties hereto have signed this stipulation at
in the county of State of Michigan,
this.. ..day of ,191...
(Applicant.)
(Respondents.)
Signed in presence of —
(Acknowledgment follows.)
LETTER FORM IN RE ARBITRATION.
I herewith inclose you copy of the application for adjustment of claim and notice
of arbitration of the same; also a blank form on which you are to designate your mem-
ber of the arbitration committee which is to hear and decide the matter. Please
select one man as your member of the committee of arbitration, write his name in the
blank at the place indicated, date and sign the same and return to the industrial
accident board in the inclosed stamped envelope.
You are required under the law to make selection of your member of the committee
of arbitration and to notify the board of your selection in the manner set forth in said
form within seven days. In case of your failure so to do it becomes the duty of the
industrial accident board to make the selection of such member. It will be necessary
for both parties to be present at the time and place fixed for this arbitration, and that
they be prepared to proceed with the matter.
Very truly, yours,
Secretary.
To
The industrial accident board has received notice of your appointment by
as a member of the arbitration committee in the matter of ,
applicant, v , respondent, such arbitration to be held
at , in the town of ,
county of , State of Michigan, on the day of
t 19 , commencing at o'clock in the noon. You are
requested to be on hand promptly at the time and place set for this arbitration, so
that the matter may be heard and disposed of without unnecessary delay.
INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT BOARD,
By ,
Secretary.
Dated this day of ,19
.APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF CLAIM BEFORE FULL BOARD.
To the Industrial Accident Board, Lansing, Mich.
GENTLEMEN: The undersigned, as provided in part 3, section 8, of act No. 10,
Public Acts 1912, makes application for a review of the findings of the committee on
arbitration in the claim of
v :
This claim for review is based on the following grounds :
Dated at this day of , 1 J
SEC 11 Part 3 If a claim for review is filed, as provided in part 3, section 8, the industrial ac cident board
shall promptly review the decision of the committee of arbitration and such records as may have been
kept of its hearings, and shall also, if desired, hear the parties, together with such additional evidence as
they may wish to submit, and file its decision therein with the records of such proceedings. Such review
and hearing may be held in its office at Lansing or elsewhere, as the board shall deem advisable.
SEC. 12. The findings of fact made by said industrial accident board acting within its powers shall, in
the absence of fraud, oe conclusive, but the supreme court shall have power to review questions of law
involved in any final decision or determination of said industrial accident board: Provided, That applica-
tion is made by the aggrieved party within 30 days after such determination by certiorari, mandamus, or
by any other method permissible under the rules and practice of said court or the laV of this State, and to
make such further orders in respect thereto as justice may require.
FORMS USED BY STATE BOARDS. 151
Forms illustrative of methods pursued by State boards without -waiting for
injured employee to institute proceedings to recover compensation.
CALIFORNIA.
DEAR SIR: The industrial accident board is informed that an accident happened
to ' at on or about
, in the course of his employment by you.
If the employee was disabled for less than one week, it is necessary to notify this
board at once.
If the disablement lasted for one week or more, it is necessary to make formal report
on the inclosed blanks.
A copy of the law relating to this matter is inclosed.
Very truly, yours,
INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT BOARD.
Statistician.
Inclosures.
DEAR SIR: We understand that you were injured in an accident on or about.
This board is required by law to get records of all industrial accidents. We desire
to have you answer the following questions:
I. What is the name and address of the person or firm for whom you were working
at the time you were hurt?
II. Were you laid up for one week or longer?
Very truly, yours,
INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT BOARD,
Statistician.
DEAR SIR: We wrote you on in reference to an accident to
who was injured and inclosed
blanks to be filled in and returned to this office, informing you at the same time that
all accidents which cause disability of more than seven days must be reported to this
board.
To date we have received no report. It is necessary that you give this matter your
prompt attention, inasmuch as failure to report to this board constitutes a misde-
meanor.
Very truly, yours,
INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT BOARD,
Statistician.
DEAR SIR: It is again necessary for us to call your attention to the fact that you
have not yet reported the accident to who was in-
jured , nor have you notified us that this accident caused a disa-
bility of less than seven days.
We wrote you on and again on , urging
upon you the necessity of reporting to this board. Failure to report as requested con-
stitutes a misdemeanor. Blanks were inclosed with our first fetter.
Very truly, yours,
INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT BOARD,
Statistician.
DEAR SIR: Supplemental or final report is due this office in the case of
, injured on The legal limit (60 days)
for the filing of such report has expired.
Yours, very truly,
INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT BOARD.
4A. FORMS— RECEIPTS FOR COMPENSATION PAYMENTS.
Illustrative of methods pursued by State boards in the filing of receipts
showing that amount of compensation has actually been paid.
MICHIGAN.
SETTLEMENT RECEIPT.
Received of
(Name of employer, insurance company, or commissioner of insurance.)
the sum of dollars
and cents, making in all, with weekly payments
already received by me, the total sum of dollars
and cents, in settlement
of compensation under the Michigan workmen's compensation law, for all injuries
received by me on or about the day of , 191 . . . ,
while in the employ of
(Name of employer, city or town, street and number.)
subject to review and approval by the industrial accident board.
Witness my hand this day of , 191 . . .
Witness.
(Name of employee.)
Address
(Street and number.)
(City or town.)
If the emj
may be,
deemed final and binding upon the parties thereto. Such agreement shall be approved by said board only
when the terms conform to the provisions of this act.— (Sec. 5, Part III.)
Form No. 11—7-13-50,000.
RECEIPT ON ACCOUNT OP COMPENSATION.
Received of the sum of
(Name of employer, insurance company, or commissioner of insurance.)
dollars and cents
being the proportion of my weekly wages from the day of 191. . . ,
to the day of 191 , under the Michigan workmen's
compensation law, subject to review by the industrial accident board, said accident
152
RECEIPTS FOR PAYMENTS. 153
occurring on the day of , 191 . . , while in the em-
ploy of
$...
(Name of employee.)
(Street and number.)
Date
(City or town.)
If the em
may
randum of such
deemed final and binding upon the parties thereto. Such agreement shall be ap'proved by said bo'ard only
when the terms conform to the provisions of this act.— (Sec. 5, Part III.)
MASSACHUSETTS.
Form No. 15.
Every agreement in regard to compensation under this act is subject to approval by the industrial accident
board and a memorandum of the same must be filed with the board, whether said agreement is written or
oral, and whether it is made by one or both parties, or in the form of a receipt. Any weekly payment or
settlement under the act, whether purporting to be final or otherwise, may be reviewed by the board.
Section 20, Part II, and sections 4 and 12, Part III, chapter 751 of the acts of 1911, and amendments thereto,
and rule No. 6 adopted by the board.
SETTLEMENT RECEIPT.
Received of - - the sum of
(Name of insurer.)
dollars and cents, making in all, with weekly
payments already received by me, the total sum of
dollars and cents, in settlement of compensation under the Massachusetts
workmen's compensation act, for all injuries received by me on or about the
day of 191. . , while in the employ of
(Name of employer, city or town, street and number.)
subject to approval and review by the industrial
accident board.
Witness my hand this day of 191. ..
Witness
(Name.) (Name of employee.)
(Street and number (Street and number.)
(City" or" town. " " (City "or town.)
No. 5. MEDICAL AND SURGICAL AID.
RECOMMENDATIONS MADE BY MASSACHUSETTS MEDICAL ADVISORY
COMMITTEE.
First. That a permanent advisory medical committee is necessary.
Second. That we consider it inexpedient to have a medical man as
a member of the industrial accident board.
Third. That the industrial accident board should have a consulting
surgeon upon whom should fall the duty of detail work in preparation
of matters to be laid before the advisory committee. Matters in dis-
pute regarding services and fees of physicians should be referred to
this committee for recommendation.
Fourth. That insurance companies be requested to provide suitable
blanks for notifications as well as specifications of services rendered
by physicians.
Fifth. That industrial insurance companies be encouraged to allow
all reputable physicians to render services in industrial accidents, pro-
vided they are willing to render such services upon reasonable basis.
Sixth. That the accident board should make arrangements with
which the insurance companies should cooperate, that any physician
whose bill is in dispute may appear before a representative of the
accident board within a reasonable distance of his home.
Seventh. That the accident board shall provide for medical referees
by districts.
* Eighth . That fees paid by the companies should not be less than the
average minimum fee in the locality in which the service is rendered.
Ninth. That charges up to $50 for major operations are not
excessive.
Tenth. That physicians appearing at hearings before the board shall
receive the compensation as provided for under section 8, part 3, of
the act.
Eleventh. That services rendered by lodge physicians be paid for,
provided it is not inconsistent with the rules of the order.
Twelfth. That specialists, established and recognized by the pro-
fession as such, may receive special rates for their work, provided the
case requires special skill.
Thirteenth. That the ruling previously made by the accident board,
that " fees should not be charged an injured party whose employer was
insured larger than the injured party would be charged were he not
insured," should be interpreted to mean that in a given accident the
fee paid by the insurance companies for services should not be less than
the average minimum fee for similar services in the locality in which
said services are rendered.
154
MEDICAL AND SURGICAL AID. 155
Report to Massachusetts Industrial Accident Board of 24 insurance companies doing busi-
ness under the workmen's compensation act in Massachusetts for the year ending June
SO, 1913.
1. Number of employees receiving medical services only 26, 609
2. Number of employees receiving compensation only l 3, 820
3. Number of employees receiving both medical services and compen-
sation x. 10, 827
4. Xumber of cases reported requiring neither payment of compensation
nor medical expense 32, 109
5. Number of fatal injury cases reported in which dependents totally
dependent for support upon the employee were left under section
6, part 2, of the act 203
6. Number of fatal injury cases in which dependents partially depend-
ent were left 31
7. Number of fatal injury cases in which no dependents were left 43
8. Total compensation paid all injured employees and dependents of
all fatally injured employees $490, 816. 80
9. Payments covering medical and hospital services and medicines,
under section 5, part 2, of the act 297, 131. 87
10. Estimated liability on account of compensation due injured em-
ployees and their dependents, covering the amount of deferred
payments for losses incurred and the estimated cost of undeter-
mined losses l 725, 267. 41
11. Estimated liability on account of medical services rendered, but not
yet paid ' .-----: 97> 158- 84
12. Compensation paid in fatal injury cases in which dependents totally
dependent survived 33, 174. 02
13. Estimated liability on account of deferred payments under item 12 2. . 313, 786. 33
14. Compensation paid in fatal injury cases in which dependents partially
dependent survived 3, 401. 47
15. Estimated liability on account of deferred payments under item 14 2. . 26, 757. 15
16. Payments covering fatal injury cases where no dependents survived,
under section 8, part 2, of the act 4, 142. 01
17. Estimated liability on account of deferred payments under section 8,
part 2 of the act 2 3, 235. 00
MEDICAL AND SURGICAL FEE SCHEDULES ADOPTED BY TWO INSUR-
ANCE COMPANIES.
SURGICAL FEE SCHEDULE.
In presenting the following fee table the company recognizes the difficulty of
making any fee table that will fit all cases, but intends to interpret the following
with all reasonableness.
It is understood that the usual first-aid charge for minor injuries, where the injured
party comes to the surgeon's office, will be either one or two dollars, according to the
severity of the injury. If the surgeon has to leave his office and go to the injured
person, an additional charge may be made in accordance with the distance, etc.
These fees have been established with the understanding that they include in all
cases the necessary appliances, dressings, anesthetics, etc., for the proper treatment
of each case, and that they will be supplied by the attending physician. It is also
imderstood that the strictest aseptic precautions will be observed in accordance
with approved methods of surgery.
i Information not yet received from two companies. Amount estimated.
» Information not yet received from one company. Amount estimated.
156
WORKMEN S COMPENSATION.
Fee table.
First aid not
to exceed —
1. Bruises, sprains, abrasions; incised, punctured, or lacerated wounds that do
not need suturing §1-2
2. More extensive lacerations or incised wounds and scalp wounds 2
3. Slight infections, burns and scalds 2
4. Any injury to a distal phalanx of the hand or foot 2
5. Compound fractures of the proximal phalanges of the fingers or toes 5
6. Compound fractures of the bones of the hand or foot (not fingers or toes) 5
7. Reduction of simple fractures or dislocations of ribs or of the small joints or
bones of the fingers or toes 3
8. Foreign bodies in conjunctival sac or cornea 2
9. Reduction of simple fractures or dislocations of the wrist or ankle, including
forearm and leg 15
10. Reductions of simple fractures or dislocations of other major joints and bones. 20
11. Compound fractures or dislocations of the wrist or ankles or major joints and
bones, where first aid includes operative reduction 25
12. Amputation of finger or toe 5
13. Amputation of hand or foot 20
14. Amputation of leg, thigh, forearm, or arm 25
15. Amputation of thigh at hip joint 75
16. Amputation at shoulder joint 50
17. Compound fracture of skull that necessitates operative opening of the cranial
cavity 75
18. Anesthesia 2-5
19. Assistance at operations, from $2 to 20 per cent of the principal fee.
20. X-ray pictures (to be taken only upon orders from the company), $2.50 each
for first two plates; $2 each for subsequent plates.
It is the experience of the company that in the subsequent care of these cases most
of them need about an average of three dressings a week, at an average charge of $1
each, where the patient goes to the doctor's office, and at an average charge of $
each where it is necessary for the doctor to go to the patient's house, until such time
as the patient may safely be trusted to dress the wound himself. When this time
comes it is expected that the surgeon will act honorably toward this company and
not continue to make dressings after they cease to be necessary.
Accordingly, it is understood that charges for subsequent treatment will in most
cases be limited to charges for three visits per week, at the following rates: Office
calls, $1; house or hospital visits, $ .
Where the policy of the insured covers first aid only, or aid for a limited term only,
no charge will be made to this company beyond the charge for such first aid or limited
term. Compensation for further dressings must be privately arranged for.
The above schedule of fees is approved and will be accepted by me as a guide
for charges where I am called upon to render surgical aid to injured persons, for which
the insurance company, accident and liability department, may undertake to pay.
(Signed.) , M. D.
Medical fee schedule.
First aid.
Subse-
quent aid.
Ordinary day visit not necessitating antiseptic dressing
$1.50
Visit necessitating and including antiseptic dressing
2.00
$1.00
Visit including both antiseptic dressings and necessary operative procedures in
ordinary cases of contusions lacerations incisions punctures etc .
3.00
1 00
Night visit 9 p m to 7 a m
2 50
Office examination and report, ordinary
1.00-2.00
First attention at office, including operative procedure and dressing of ordinary
1 00-2 00
1.00
Removal foreign body from conjunctive
1.00
1.00
Removal foreign body from cornea .
2.00
1.00
MEDICAL AND SUEGICAL AID.
157
Medical fee schedule — Continuad.
AMPUTATIONS.
First aid.
Subsequent aid.
Hospital
or home.
Hip joint $40.00 $2.00
Thigh at any point 40. 00 2. 00
Leg or foot 25.00 2.00
Shoulder joint 40.00 2.00
Arm or forearm or hand 25. 00 2. 00
Metatarsal or metacarpal:
Single , 10. 00 1. 50
Two or more '. 15. 00 1. 50
Fingers or toes:
Single 5. 00 1. 50
Two or more 10. CO 1. 50
FRACTURES.
Upper arm $12. 50 $1. 50
Forearm:
One bone 10. 00 1. 50
Both bones 12. 50 1. 50
Femur 25.00 1.50
Lower leg:
One bone 10.00 1.50
Both bones 15. 00-20. 00 1. 50
Jaw 10.00 1.50
Ribs, one or more. 5.00 1.50
Patella 15.00 1.50
Pelvis 15. 00 1 . 50
Metatarsal or metacarpal 5. 00 1. 50
Fin ger or to e 3.00 1.50
Two or more 5.00 1.50
Scapula 10.00 1.50
Clavicle, full aid 10. 00
Nasal bones 5. 00 1. 50
Compound fractures, add 25 per cent for first aid only.
DISLOCATIONS, ETC.
Shoulder ,
Elbow...
Hip
Knee
Ankle...
Wrist...
Finger...
Jaw,
Trephining skull
Ligating important arteries
Reduction of ordinary hernia when due solely to recent injury, and
applying truss
Reduction of strangulated hernia by taxis
Herniotomy
Enucleation of eyeball
General anesthetic
Complete physical examination and report
Autopsy, complete with written report
Attending but not performing
Testimony in court as to simple fact of injury
Expert testimony
Passing catheter
§10.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
10.00
5.00
2.00
5.00
40.00
10.00
5.00
10.00
30.00
25.00
5.00
3.00-5.00
25.00
10.00
10.00
15.00-25.00
1.50
$1.50
1.50
1.50
1.50
1.50
1.50
1.50
1.50
1.50
1.50
1.50
1.50
1.50
1.50
X-rays (to be taken only upon orders by the company), $2.50 each for first two pictures; $2 each for
subsequent pictures.
Dated at
this
day of
191-.
By
Surgeon.
Company,
158 WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
SURGEON'S FEE BILL ADOPTED BY THE STATE LIABILITY BOARD OF
AWARDS, COLUMBUS, OHIO.
Fractures — Reducing and first dressings. Dislocation — Reducing and dressings.
(This does not apply to cases where wir- Hip $15. 00
ing or other operation is necessary.) Shoulder joint 15. 00
Femur . $25.00 Wrist..
Patella 15.00 Elbow... 8.00
Tibia, fibula, or both 12.50 Finger or toe 2.&C
Clavicle 12.50 ^le':
Scapula 15.00 Lower jaw o.OO
Radius, ulna, or botli 10. 00
Jaw 10. 00 Miscellaneous — Treatment and dressing of
Humerus 15. 00 lacerated wounds of soft parts, tears,
Nasal bones 5.00 burns, scalp wounds, sprains, strains,
Ribs 5.00 contusions, bruises, arresting hemor-
Finger or toe 5. 00 rhages, stitching wounds, etc.
Amputations and first dressings. Ordinary case, first dressing $0. 50-$2. 00
At thigh $50.00 Extraordinary case, first
At shoulder joint 50. 00 dressing 2. 00-5. 00
At knee 30. 00 After dressing (depending on
Of arm 25.00 the nature of the injury .50-2.00
Of both hands 25. 00 Removing foreign body from
Of either hand 15.00 eye (ordinary) 1.00
Of forearm 22.50 Cutting down and ligating
Of leg..... 22.50 large vessels 15.00
Offoot 20.00 Trephining skull 50.00
Through meta carpus or tarsus. . . 15. 00 Assistant administering an-
Of one finger or toe 5. 00 aesthetic 5. OC
Of each additional finger or toe . . 2. 50 Assistant to surgeon 5. 00
EXPLANATORY NOTE TO MEDICAL PROFESSION.
The total charge for afterdressings should not exceed 50 per cent of the charge for
first attention, as per the fee bill. There may be exceptions to this. Such exceptions
will be thoroughly investigated by the medical department.
The charges for reducing dislocations are for full attention.
Under "Miscellaneous," the charges should be reasonable and in proportion to the
injury. The same applies to afterdressings.
Attention rendered for other injuries not listed to be in accordance with this fee bill.
This fee bill is taken from a large number of county medical societies and other fee
bills, and are the minimum average reasonable fees collected for services rendered
injured workmen. It is to the interest of physicians to cooperate with the board and
this department in rendering good treatment and to charge reasonable fees, in accord-
ance with this fee bill. By so doing you will aid very materially in abolishing con-
tract surgery, which has been used extensively in the past, and which has always
been objectionable to the medical profession. We wish to avoid contract surgery.
The profession can also aid by not rendering "too attentive treatment," with the
idea of creating a large fee. This will not be tolerated by the board, neither will
aiding an injured man who attempts to malinger.
Services rendered to injured employees are rendered subject to section 23 of the
workmen's compensation act. An amount considered reasonable by the board (using
this surgeon's fee bill as a basis) is granted to the injured employee for payment of such
claim. In nearly every case the injured employee signs an authorization which
authorizes the board to pay the amount granted for medical services, etc., direct to
the physician or person rendering such services.
NOTE. — If the physician has not completed the treatment of the injury, retain the
fee bill and return to the medical department just as soon as treatment is completed.
This in order that the board may consider the reasonableness of your fees, and, if
reasonable, that such amount so considered may be allowed, according to section 23
of the workmen's compensation law.
MEDICAL AND SURGICAL AID. 159
Before the State liability board of awards.
In the matter of the claim of , for money to pay for
medical services, etc . No Physician 'a fee bill .
The following is an itemized account of professional services rendered in connec-
tion with the treatment of injury to
of , the treatment indicated below and necessary services ren-
dered therefor are reasonable and not more than charges for like services which I
render other injured workmen.
Date.
Items.
Amount.
(Items should be written out fully. Do not abbreviate.)
,M.D.
(Signature of Affiant.)
(The above must be sworn to if such a request is made by the board or the chief
medical examiner. See rules of procedure No. XV.)
OATH.
STATE OP Omo, COUNTY OF , ss.
, being first duly sworn, says that the facts stated
in his foregoing fee bill are true.
,M.D.
(Signature of Physician.)
Sworn to and subscribed before me, the undersigned authority, on the.
day of ,191...
[SEAL.]
(Title of officer taking acknowledgments.)
NOTE. — The officer taking this acknowledgment is cautioned to see that this blank
is properly filled out and that the acknowledgment is properly taken. Acknowledg-
ment may be taken before a notary public, justice of the peace, mayor, or other
officer authorized by law to administer paths. Acknowledgments may also be taken
before a member or any inspector, examiner, or traveling auditor of the State liability
board of awards.
CERTIFICATE.
(The physician is earnestly requested to fill out certificate when services to claimant
are completed.)
I hereby certify that the above-named claimant will be able to return to work on
the day of , 191. . . That from the nature of the injury
he will be able to earn per cent of the wages earned by him previous to
the accident.
, M. D.
SPECIAL SURGEON'S FEE BILL.
The special surgeon's fee bill given below has been adopted by the State liability
board of awards as being reasonable for such services rendered injured workmen:
1. Foreign body on cornea $2. 00
2. Cauterizing cornea ulcer 5. 00
3. Burns of cornea lids, etc., including removing burned tissue, cin-
ders, etc 5.00-10.00
4. Lacerated cornea, cleaning dirt from flaps, and cauterizing same 5. 00-10. 00
5. Lacerated cornea with prolapsed iris, amputating prolapsed iris, and
replacing stumps 25. 00-50. 00
160 WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION".
6. Extraction of steel from eye >.-. $25. 00-50. 00
7. Enucleating eyeball 25. 00-35. 00
8. Sewing lacerated lids 2. 50- 5. 00
9. Sewing lacerated eyeball 10. 00
10. Officecalls 1.00- 1.50
11. Hospital calls 1. 50- 2. 00
12. Plastic operations on lids and eyeball, following burn contractures. . 25. 00-50. 00
Reducing fracture of nose 5. 00
Anesthetic (given by assistant physician) 5. 00
NOTE. — The above report must be sworn to if such request is made by the board or
its chief medical examiner. (Rule 15.)
STATE OF OHIO, COUNTY OF , ss:
, being first duly sworn, says that the facts
stated in his foregoing report are true.
, M. D.
(Signature of physician.)
Sworn to and subscribed before me, the undersigned authority, on the day
of.. ..191..
[SEAL.]
(Title of officer taking acknowledgment.)
NOTE. — The officer taking this acknowledgment is cautioned to see that this blank
is properly filled out and that the acknowledgment is properly taken. Acknowledg-
ment may be taken before a notary public, justice of the peace, mayor, or other officer
authorized by law to administer oaths. Acknowledgments may also be taken before
a member, or any inspector, examiner, or traveling auditor of the State liability board
of awards.
NOTE. — This report must be made out and returned at once to the State liability
board of awards, Columbus, Ohio, in order that the injured employe's case can be
completed and thereby secure an early hearing by the board.
{STATE OF OHIO, STATE LIABILITY BOARD OF AWARDS, COLUMBUS, OHIO. SPECIAL SURGEON'S REPORT.]
Claim No
Case of
(All questions relating to part affected should be answered. Questions 1 to 8, inclu-
sive, should always be answered. Questions 9 and 10 for the eye, and questions 11
and 12 for the ear.)
STATE LIABILITY BOARD OF AWARDS,
Columbus, Ohio.
1 . Name of injured person Address
2. Age , Sex , Color , Nationality , Married,
single, or divorced
3. Date of accident , Hour of day M.
4. State who rendered first treatment, and what was done
5. Give patient's version of how accident occurred
6. Was repair delayed from any cause? : . Was there any previous injury to
part now affected?
7. Is there any evidence of syphilitic, gonorrhoeal, tubercular infection; alcohol,
tobacco, drugs, or any occupational disease present in this case?
8. WTiat is the temporary disability in this case?
The permanent disability? ,
EYE.
[O. D Vision 0. D
9. Vision uncorrected{ after
10. S Correction O. S
10. WTas perimetric, or any other special test or examination necessary?
If so, give results of same
MEDICAL AND SURGICAL AID. 161
EAR.
11. Hearing, acoumeter,^
12. Bone conduction^;
13. Give a summary of the case as you see it; peculiar conditions, etc
Kindly use charts on back for illustrations when necessary.
Graduate of ,19
Date , 19 , M. D.
HOSPITALS.
[Extract from report of Massachusetts Industrial Board for 1913.]
The next problem of importance was the relationship of the hos-
pitals to the act. Many abuses in connection with hospital services
under the act were discovered, and it was finally found necessary to
take the same action in regard to hospitals as was taken with the
medical profession. A meeting with the hospital administrators
was held at the statehouse, at which James B. Carroll, chairman of
the board, presided, and a general discussion of the hospital problem
was participated in by the representatives of the 38 hospitals in at-
tendance.
A special committee, consisting of Dr. Halbert G. Stetson, chair-
man, Springfield; Dr. Walter R. Weiser, secretary, Springfield; Dr.
Walter P. Bowers, Clinton; Dr. Fred A. Wash burn, Boston; Dr.
John H. McCullom, Boston; Dr. Francis R. Mahoney, Lowell; and
Mr. Richard P. Borden, Fall River, was appointed to report on the
hospital problem.
The report submitted by this committee follows:
The committee appointed by your honorable chairman to consider the subjects of —
First. Hospital charges.
Second. Additional surgical charges.
Third. Recommendations as to how the act might be improved; beg to herewith
submit their report.
In considering these questions the committee has secured data from 54 hospitals in
the State, and their conclusions are based upon such data, together with the experience
of the members of the committee.
In arriving at a fair charge for hospital care, we asked for the per capita cost of each
institution. The average is found to be $16.66 per week. The usual operating-room
charge is $5, but some charge $10 in unusual cases.
The X-ray charges vary because of various ways of making the charge. In the
opinion of the committee, the radiographer should be paid for the examination re-
gardless of the number of plates made. It is to his ability to interpret plates and to
his advice, that the surgeon owes much of his success in obtaining good results.
Serums, notably that of tetanus, must be used in certain cases, and the expense is
apt to be very great. This item, together with special appliances and special drugs,
should be paid for at cost.
In cases of delirium tremens following accidents, and a few other conditions, spe-
cial nursing is a necessity, and this should be paid for at the usual nursing rates.
We inquired into the ability of the hospital managements to collect bills from those
who remained in the hospital more than two weeks. The feeling is almost unanimous
that, although persistent effort is made to collect from the patient or friends, the loss
is enormous, ranging from 50 to 99 per cent.
Many hospitals claim that the admission of industrial accident cases is a detriment
to the hospital, because of this inability to collect from long fracture and septic cases,
30003— S. Doc. 419, 63-2 11
162 WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
and the losses incident to such cases. Nevertheless, the hospital must be regarded as
being the most desirable place for the treatment of all serious cases.
The following conclusions are respectfully submitted as the suggestions of this
committee for working basis in the solution of these problems:
That the fee for hospital care in such cases should be $15 per week in addition to
the following extras:
Operating-room fee, $5.
X-ray, $5 for each examination, without regard to the number of plates made,
except for examinations of the head, trunk, or hip, when a charge of $10 may be
made.
Serums, special drugs, and special appliances shall be charged for at cost.
Special nurses, when necessary, shall be paid for at the usual price for each hos-
pital, the maximum charge not to exceed $4 per day and $4 per night.
Ambulance, $3 for calls within a radius of 3 miles, and $1 for each additional mile,
the charge to be made only in one direction.
Out-patients shall be charged a maximum fee of $2 for the first attendance, plus
the operating-room fee if used. For subsequent calls the charge shall not exceed $1
for each visit.
When a surgeon is employed to care for an injured person, and such person is ad-
mitted to the hospital, or when the custom or rule of the hospital provides that a pa-
tient shall pay the surgeon's fee, the surgeon should, under the compensation act,
be entitled to his proper fees in addition to the hospital charges.
That the period of time for which hospital services shall be paid by the association
should be extended to such time as is necessary or expedient for the injured person
to remain in the institution.
That the industrial accident board should be given power to decide upon the pay-
ment of bills for medical, surgical, and hospital attendance, beyond the first two
weeks after injury, in cases in which their judgment dictates such extended attendance.
5 A. MALINGERING.
[Extract from Massachusetts Industrial Commission's Report, 1913.]
The industrial accident board would not feel it had done its full duty to the legis-
lature if it did not call attention to the conditions which have shown, especially in
Europe, a tendency to sap the vital elements of character and check the growth of
the qualities of the highest value in national development, because when all is said
and done the material well-being of the wage earner depends as largely on his char-
acter as it does on the regulations which law imposes or assistance which legislatures
can give. No innovation begun by a State can be stopped at anyone's pleasure or
regulated according to the original intention.
One of the logical, but most unexpected, developments of the workmen's com-
pensation act was shown almost immediately in the throwing of aged and infirm
employees out of industry to reduce the cost to certain employers of insurance pre-
miums. One company in Massachusetts, after a physical examination, discharged
22 employees who were either aged or under par physically within a few weeks after
the act went into effect. For instance, employees found with varicose veins, hard-
ened arteries, and advanced in years, if injured, would not be likely to respond to
treatment, and a trifling injury might result in payment for total disability under
the act. Epileptics and others, who by reason of their infirmity would likely be
injured in their occupations, when discovered, find employment more difficult and
in some cases impossible.
The State which has thrown these employees out of work will eventually be asked
to make provisions for them, although the danger of acts providing for nonemployment
insurance and superannuated insurance is so obvious that they need not be here
discussed. However, because such legislation is dangerous and, if adopted, would
necessarily result in a great burden to the State it should be studied and, if possible,
by providing against the need of it, make such laws unnecessary.
Workmen's compensation acts have been effective in some of the European States
for 30 years or more. It is alleged, with substantial proof, that workmen's compen-
sation acts have been followed by successful attempts at malingering, it being more
difficult year by year to get injured workmen cured of their injuries. The growth
of new forms of nervous diseases arising out of workmen's compensation acts had
begun to attract attention in Germany as long as 20 years ago. European doctors
are accused of using irregularly the workmen's compensation act as a form of reve-
nue; some of the workmen are accused of exploiting their accidents — a process so
human and easy to understand that it is quite a normal and psychical proceeding.
It does not follow that all these cases of simulation are wholly fraudulent, because
there is nearly always ground for making the original claim. German literature on
this subject gives the case of a man who hoodwinked the insurance authorities in
Berlin for the payment of 50 per cent of his average weekly wages for a disability
arising out of industry and who was accidentally discovered to be following the occu-
pation of an acrobat in Alsace. Another case has been quoted where a man draw-
ing disability payment for an injured elbow at the same time under another name
was earning a living as a pugilist.1
These cases are not manifesting themselves in great numbers in Massachusetts,
but there are already indications that before long they will be of sufficient importance
to constitute a problem.
Such cases involve aliens of a certain type, temperamentally nervous, alcoholics,
whose vital energy and stamina have become undermined; the subnormal, neu-
rotics, and those suffering from various forms of nervous diseases. The lazy and
incompetent — the failures in industry — may prefer, after injury, to receive one-half
their average weekly wage for an indefinite period rather than trying to get work at
their old or in any occupation.
The object of the act is to return people to industry; one of the effects of the act
is that people refuse to go to work while they are in pain. Before the act went into
effect the uninsured workman with a broken leg, whose muscles became contracted
l "National Insurance and National Character." Edinburgh Review, July, 1913.
163
164 WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
and partially atrophied, because of the fracture, was forced by necessity to go to work,
and did go to work. Every day he found that the pain was less and less, and it soon
disappeared. The injured employee receiving half or more of his average weekly
wage under a compensation act, and who for any reason is not ambitious, may, and
sometimes does, refuse to go to work while there is any pain in the injured part. The
longer such injured employees stay away from work the harder it is for them ever to
go to work; and unless prompt and stringent means are taken to force them back into
employment it is not long until the atrophy becomes permanent, and the injured
employee becomes a charge on the law up to full period of total disability, and sub-
sequently on private or public charity. This is not to be wondered at. The ordinary
person after a fortnight's vacation in the summer time finds it difficult on his return
to start to work, and if the incentive to remain away at vacation on half pay could be
supplied it is probable that summer vacations would be extended longer than they
are to-day.
Some workmen who are victims of bad advice or afraid of pain refuse to accept the
medical or surgical services offered by the insurance companies, which is necessary
to put them back on a working basis. To remedy this defect in the Massachusetts
law it is suggested that section 19, paragraph D, of the Illinois law should be added
as an amendment to the act, which says:
" If any employee shall persist in insanitary or injurious practices which tend to
either imperil or retard his recovery, or shall refuse to submit to such medical or
surgical treatment as is reasonably essential to promote his recovery, the board may,
in its discretion, reduce or suspend the compensation of any such injured employee."
The principal danger of malingering, which up to now has not been very great in
Massachusetts, is not in the cost of insurance to employers, or its effect on the profits
of the insurance companies; but the great danger of the spread of these practices is
to the workingman himself, because nothing more quickly undermines energy and
self-respect than this practice, the consequences of which are permanent and hit him
when he is down.
In the opinion of the board the way to prevent the growth of practices which have
made similar acts odious in Europe is:
First. The establishment of a definite medical policy regarding injuries, so that
as far as possible and human all injuries shall be judged on a uniform basis. Every
time the board is outwitted by a malingerer the precedent is important. The board
needs a medical adviser whose duty it will be to pass on the medical problems which
rise out of industrial injuries. A competent medical adviser will assist the board
in fairly and uniformly administering the law, and while benefiting the employee
whose injury is genuine and disability honest, will prevent the malingerer from
getting benefits which are not deserved; and
Second. To give the industrial accident board authority to hire or establish one
or more wards in hospitals, located to serve the industrial centers of the Commonwealth,
where doubtful cases of disability may be sent at the discretion of the board for observa-
tion and study, the cost to be assessed pro rata on the insurance companies.
NO. 6. ACCEPTANCES AND REJECTIONS OF ELECTIVE ACTS BY
EMPLOYERS.
The reasons given for accepting the acts in various States vary, but
they do not in any case necessarily show that the employer is entirely
satisfied with the particular compensation act under which he is
working. They do &how either that he is satisfied with the principle
of compensation or believes that the particular act has more merit
than demerit from the point of view of his needs.
The reasons given by employers for rejecting the act are valuable
mainly from the standpoint of legislation, as they frequently suggest
some clefect in the law which caused the employer to reject it.
While many employers have accepted the law because they believe
in the principle of compensation and regard the system as in tended %
to be fair and just to both employer and employee, others have aoted*
from a merely practical motive, as, for example, by advice of their
insurance agent, or for the reason that the act tends to avert litiga-
tion or leads to prompt settlements and fixes definitely the amount
of liability. Many, in replying, have frankly stated that their reason
or accepting the law was the fact that their defenses under the
iability act were removed by the statute.
CALIFORNIA.
Reasons for accepting the act. — California, in the reports of employers
who have accepted the act, reflects a variety of motives for favorable
action. A company employing 450 persons in manufacturing electric
heating appliances went in under the act " because the principle is
goqd." A department store with 500 employees said, " Under the
compensation a portion of our insurance premiums is likely to reach
injured employees. Under ordinary liability, no part, or a very
small part, of the amount paid out by us in premiums may reach
injured employees." A telephone company regards it as "fair to
both sides." A firm with 30 employees preparing "upper leather"
assigns as its motive "equity." A firm of building contractors says
that they are "wholly in sympathy with its purpose." A metal-
weld company with 12 on the pay roll "accepted for reasons both
humane and financial; cost in case of accidents limited to reasonable
amount." A manufacturer of pumps, gas engines, and general
jobbing, 20 employees: "More satisfactory than carrying insurance,
and we think it a just act; employees should be projected." Purely
financial considerations are avowed in many cases: "Figured it put
us on a definite basis for settlements, and we know ' where we are
at. " "Seemed more economical than insurance and more practical
of adjustment with more fairness to both parties." "Insurance
company advised and issued policy only on condition that we did."
"Ordinary protection becomes decided and less opportunity for con-
tested claims; as good for one as the other." "The company's
lawyers advised that it would be the most economical under the
165
166 WOKKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
laws." "Good insurance." "To avoid uncertain damage liability."
Sentiment has a place in not a few of the reports: "Personally we
believe it wise. We believe we have the best governed State in the
Union, and that the State legislature and government knew what
they were doing when they passed the law." "Our liability insur-
ance company asked us to do so, " is th? report of a laundry with 75
employees. An electric, water, and gas company, with "250 em-
ployees, reports: "We believed that it would be cheaper for the com-
Eany, more equitable for its employees, and likely to discourage
tigation instigated and fostered by third parties." "This plan of
insurance was accepted in the hope that definite amounts for specific
injuries arranged according to schedule by law would give much
more satisfactory feeling between employer and employee." "We
considered it better for us and our employees to let the matter of com-
pensation be settled by State commission rather than by the courts."-
"Accepted compensation act because we felt our employees were
entitled to some consideration in case of accident, which could easily
be provided by insurance."
Reasons for rejecting the act. — Among the reported rejections one is
from a fruit cannery, giving 1,000 as the number of employees. Of
the act is said: "It is so complicated that we have never had a full
understanding of it. Most large concerns have not accepted." A
gas and electric corporation which has 1,100 employees reports,
"Having had little or no trouble in former years with our employees
in the matter of adjustments on account of accidents, we have delayed
our acceptance or rejection of the compensation act of this State."
A dry goods house with 575 persons in its employ writes, "Acceptance
of act and carrying insurance therefor meant an increase in the cost
of our insurance coverage of several hundred per cent. We make a
practice of paying full lost time for accidents and insuring our legal
liability only, both of which combined make it cheaper than the
acceptance of the compensation act."
ILLINOIS.
Reasons for accepting the act. — Illinois, judging by the reports re-
ceived, has its new compensation act brought to a form acceptable to
many important manufacturing interests. Many of the replies to the
request for reasons for accepting the act give purely financial ex-
planations: "Figured there was nothing to be gained by rejecting it.
Insurance rates as high one way as the other. Also figured some-
thing of this kind was bound to come and we might as well support
it first as last." "We considered it advantageous, because the com-
pensations were limited to certain amounts." "Legal penalties im-
posed on nonacceptance." "Because it specifically states amount to
which injured person is entitled." A bottle manufacturer having
2,800 employees wrote, " Rejected for one year, not knowing just what
the new law meant to us, but since May 20, 1913, we have accepted,
and mighty glad of it." Another employer writes, "The insurance
rates of the liability companies were considered too high and we be-
lieved we could get better results in dollars and cents and in keeping
down accidents to employees." A company of sole-leather cutters,
325 employees, " The general consensus of opinion among pur business
friends favors accepting the act; reason, a more definite hazard."
ACCEPTANCES AND REJECTIONS. 167
A manufacturer of folding cartons, corrugated paper, etc., 1,300
employees, " We believed it was to our interest to do so." " Other-
wise we are deprived of practically all defenses." "Did not care to
risk paying heavy damages. " " The new act defines our liability, and
is therefore preferable to the uncertainty incident to the common-law
practice." "We are a public-utility corporation and do not wish to
antagonize either our employees or the public; accepting the law
puts us beyond criticism in the handling of accidents to employees;
it also gives us a definite amount each month to charge on our books
account of injuries." The foregoing replies are illustrative of many.
Others run: "Saves time and trouble"; "More definite as to the
compensation due"; "A safe business proposition." Broad views
are not infrequently taken. A company manufacturing tin cans,
boxes, and metal specialties, 100 employees, writes: "We believe that
the compensation plan is a step in the right direction. We believe
that fair and equitable remuneration is due an injured employee
regardless of the cause of the accident"; a farm-implements manu-
facturer, 2,000 employees, "We were already operating a similar plan
and had few changes to make"; "Ultimately to gain best results
both for employer and employee"; "Because by accepting and carry-
ing insurance we knew just what our annual expense would be and
because we thought by so doing more compensation would reach the
workman and less absorbed in lawyers' fees"; "We think it a good
thing for an injured man to be helped by his employer, and not fought
in the courts, to aid the insurance companies"; "Since accepting we
have had absolutely no more difficulties with our employees and have
done away with all compensation lawsuits." A printing, binding,
and lithographing company, 110 employees, "We considered it a
good, fair method on account of advantage to the laboring classes";
a watch-manufacturing company with 3,000 employees says: "Be-
cause we are in sympathy with the purpose of the act and we believe
in following the laws of the State"; a Chicago wholesale clothing com-
pany, 550 employees, "For protection given both employer and em-
ployee"; a lumber company, also manufacturers of tin boxes, 900
employees, "In view of our having been deprived of the three princi-
pal defenses formerly allowed by law we considered it better to oper-
ate under the act"; a company making metal beds and spring beds,
175 employees, "We thought it a just act on the whole, and were
willing to give it a trial"; a company manufacturing furniture,
"Think it best to be good"; a brewing company, 500 employees,
"In favor of workingmen's compensation"; a steel and wire company,
500 employees, "Because we believe in compensation for disabled
employees"; a foundry with 2,500 employees, "Better for workmen";
a machinery company, 1,100 to 1,200 employees, "Believe that in
the long run it would work to the advantage of both the company
and its employees." A foundry producing malleable-iron castings,
with 750 employees, writes, "Not enough experience to say which is
better." A hosiery company, 150 employees, was "advised by the
insurance companies." A plate and window glass jobbing house
with 100 employees reports, "Our experience with insurance com-
panies had previously been so unsatisfactory and we felt that it was a
wise law." A company manufacturing "specialties" says, "Believe
that the burden of accidents to employees should fall on the em-
168 WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
ployers the same as in the case of machinery." A hardware manu-
facturer, 200 employees, " We would be glad to pay to our employees
a reasonable compensation for accidents, rather than to an insurance
company."
Reasons for rejecting the act. — A company making wooden boxes,
80 employees, says, " We filed against the act in 1912 for the reason
that we believed same unconstitutional and could secure the same
protection with our liability insurance company, whether we rejected
or accepted the compensation act. Since then our State has put in a
new compensation act of 1913, repealing the act effective May 1,
1912, and we have just recently advised the industrial board at
Springfield that we will come within and be bound by the provisions
of this act." A coal-mining company, with 1,100 employees, " Prin-
cipally because so few mining corporations have accepted, and the
added cost by reason of act hinders us in competition with companies
in other States where no compensation law exists." A company
making and printing envelopes, 250 employees, " Approve the prin-
ciple involved, but consider the Illinois law unfair in that it makes
good risks and carefully managed plants suffer for the deficiencies of
poor risks. We have never had a serious injury, deal with our em-
ployees liberally, and prefer to do so outside the new law." A job
printing and binding establishment writes, "From our experience we
believed we could better afford to stay out of it." A box factory,
with 100 employees, " First, account of excessive rate charged by
employers' liability insurance companies to carry risks under the act;
second, account small per cent of accidents we have had past 15
years, we have concluded to carry own risk and take chances should
any trouble arise." One small employer, "Did not think it would be
enforced"; another, "Lack of understanding of its intentions";
another, "Too expensive"; another, "Insurance lower." A company
manufacturing paving brick rives the following: "In cases of in-
juries, etc., we prefer to settle with injured for lump sum rather
than weekly payments. We also pay doctor and hospital bills."
KANSAS.
Reasons for accepting the act. — A cement manufacturing concern in
Kansas, one of the employers who at first stood aloof from the reach
of the law, but who has recently accepted it, writes, "At the time the
workmen's compensation act took effect we did not come under the
act, on the advice of our attorneys. Since then, however, several
amendments were passed at the last session of our legislature. These,
together with the experience we have had during the past year, and
the further fact that many of the insurance companies are now willing
to write policies under tne act at practically the same price as they
previously wrote when not, under the act, convinces us that it will
be to our advantage to make the change." A brickmaker, with 175
employees, regards the act as "safer and fairly equitable." A com-
pany manufacturing soaps and glycerine, 300 employees, writes,
We believe a compensation act the logical method of handling
industrial accidents." A chemical company, with 150 employees,
says, "Affords employer certain protection and gives a definite lia-
bility." A company .manufacturing vitrified bricks and tiles reports,
"We believe it is the fairest thing for the employer and employee yet
ACCEPTANCES AND REJECTIONS. 169
offered, as it is definite and concise and avoids expensive outlay in
legal employment." Several employers accepting report as "acting
under advice of our attorney."
Reasons for rejecting the act. — Among the rejections, one, reported
by a firm of plumbing and heating contractors employing 25 to 75
persons, had this statement, "We thought the original law unfair in
that in case of fatal accident, dependents were privileged to disre-
gard compensation act and bring suit under former laws. This was
changed by the last legislature, and we shall probably accept the act
at the expiration of present liability policy." A structural steel and
foundry company says, "We think the law needs revising. We favor
compensation as it is in Illinois." That they "can handle losses to
better advantage," or "it is too one-sided," or "think it is unreason-
able and too stringent," or that the liability rate is excessive, are
among the reasons offered by other employers for not accepting.
MASSACHUSETTS.
Reasons for accepting the act. — In Massachusetts, where the act was
very rapidly and generally accepted by employers, we find employers
giving the following reasons: A manufacturer of worsted and
woolen yarns employing 325 people said: "Because we considered
compensation an equitable arrangement." A company of felt
manufacturers, with 525 employees, said: "Affords a reasonable and
equitable way of settling questions of injuries to workmen." The
response made by a manufacturer of steamfitters' supplies, with
1,200 employees, was: "We believe in a compensation act, and
believe it should have the support of all manufacturers." A
shoe manufacturer employing 1,300 people gave the following
comprehensive answer: We believe in the act from two stand-
points; first, the workmen should receive a definite compensa-
tion for industrial accidents, irrespective of the negligence of
his employer, and without the necessity for employing an attorney
and proceeding in the courts with the delay and hardship involved;
second, the employer should be free from liability of litigation,
attorneys' fees, and exorbitant damages." A jute and hemp
manufacturer employing 3,200 persons said: "Our reasons for accept-
ing the act were, first, the expense to us under its provisions promised
to be less than before; and, second, we believe in the enactment of a
compensation law, and thought on the whole that the provisions
of trie Massachusetts law were good." A manufacturer of linen
thread and twines, 500 employees, said: " We have always believed
in the payment of compensation rather than settlement of liability;
furthermore, we consider that under the Massachusetts act accept-
ance is practically compulsory as the principal defenses are removed
if employer fails to accept the act." Some employers report a
belief in the law as "just," or "a good thing," or "a progressive
step," or "a safeguard against all suits." One accepted it "for the
good of Massachusetts." A brewer with 63 employees writes: "We
thought it appealed to us as not furnishing the possibilities for abuse
that pur insurance suffered previous to the compensation act." A
printing establishment employing between 100 and 125 wrote:
Because we think it is fair to the employees, and the printers of the
United Typothetse of America five years ago at the convention at
170 WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
Detroit took the stand that the business should pay for injuries,
and a resolution was passed instructing each typothetae to urge the
passage of the act." An electric illuminating company of Boston
with 1,800 employees said: " Appreciation of protection afforded
and the fairness of the act as a whole." A manufacturer of women's
slippers with 435 employees said: " First, we are in sympathy with
the act. It solved the problem of our being able to do something
for our employees who are injured by a method other than through
recourse to the courts; and, second, we think it safer to do business
availing ourselves of the protection which the act gives us." A
manufacturer of pressed steel with 250 employees said: " We accepted
this act because we thought it best for the interest of both ourselves
and of our employees." A manufacturer of shoe heels employing
350 persons thought it "best that the State should be assisted in
trying to work out improved insurance and compensation plan for
employees and employers." Another employer said: " Acceptance
seemed reasonable, logical, and in accord with the spirit of the
times," while a corporation employing 4,000 persons said: "The act
in its general features appealed to us as being good." Those
accepting the act for the reason that their defenses were taken away
make such statements as: "We accepted the compensation plan as, if
we -did not we should have to take our chances with the common
law, with the ordinary defenses, viz., that the employee was neg-
ligent, that the injury was caused by the negligence of another
employee, that the employee assumed risk of employment, removed.
Refusal to accept deprived us of important defenses in case of suit,
unjustly so, we believe." A corporation engaged in freight-car
building with 450 employees said: "Accepted mainly for the reason
that under the present State law the defense of negligence of a fellow
employee is wholly eliminated." A shoe manufacturer employing
600 persons said : ' ' We supposed we were protecting our employees,
also ourselves, from suits for damages."
Reasons for rejecting the act. — In Massachusetts some large emplov-
ers rejected the act for the reasons that they desired to carry their
own risk without insurance, which they could not do under the Mas-
sachusetts law, and that they had their particular plan of compensa-
tion in operation directly with their employees. A hemlock bark and
lumbering company with 100 employees replied, "Have paid no
attention to it; think it unfair." A steamship company having
approximately 300 employees, a large proportion of whom are hourly
laborers, said, "We have not accepted the act on account of insurance
feature. That feature we regard as making the rule unfair and
impracticable to large employers. In Rhode Island, where similar
act was passed without the insurance feature, we have accepted the
act." A dry goods house with 80 to 90 employees said, "Not tried
it yet; wanted to watch its workings for a year or two until it got
settled to a legitimate basis." Among the large employers who
rejected it was one with 3,800 employees, which replied, "Rejected.
Proposed rate of insurance would cost us several times more than our
present liability arrangement for employees." Another replied, "Pre-
mium cost too high," while a sewing machine company reported,
"Because of cost of insurance (about $3,000). Our custom has been
for several years to pay injured employees for full time while inca-
ACCEPTANCES AND REJECTIONS. 171
pacitated, also all doctors' bills for them, resulting in average pay-
ment on this account in less than $500. We have never been sued
but once, and that was settled before going to jury. Fortunately,
none of the accidents have been serious." Another large company
employing several thousand men said, "The company has adopted a
plan of its own, entitled 'Plan^ for employees' pensions, disability
benefits, and insurance,' which it believes is more liberal and benefi-
cial to its employees than the compensation act." A concern with
3,500 to 4,000 employees said, "We believed that it would be less
expensive to insure under a common-law liability and that our
employees would be as well and as fully protected as under the
compensation act."
MICHIGAN.
Reasons for accepting the act. — In Michigan, acceptance of the law
has been quite general among the employers reporting. Following
are quotations from the returns of large companies that have accepted
the act: A copper mining company with 993 employees, "It does
away with damage suits wherein in case the company loses the
employee gets little benefit, the lawyers taking most." A motor car
company, 6,700 employees, "Because of our belief in the principles
of workmen's compensation and desire to give our employees the
benefit of the law's provisions." A manufacturer of cans, sheet-
metal goods, and auto radiators, 400 employees, "By accepting, we
believed injured employees would receive full benefit of compensation
instead of having to divide it with attorneys." A refrigerator com-
Eanv, 450 employees, "It is a good law. Every workman gets pay
3r his injuries. Shyster lawyers are out of a job." A stove-manu-
facturing company employing 1,250 people, "Accepted act for best
interests of our employees." A car and foundry company, 4,000
employees, "Could not afford to act under common law and think
compensation is best for both employer and employee." A manu-
facturer of heavy chemicals, 1,500 employees, "First, act removed all
of common defenses and put us, if we did not accept, at the mercy of
unscrupulous attorneys; second, act seemed fair to Doth employer and
employee." A manufacturer of soda ash, 1,700 employees, "We
believe it is a good thing for both parties. It eliminates lawsuits and
lessens the work of the courts. It gives all the compensation to the
employee without his paying any lawyer's fees. It fixes the amount
the employer must pay, and enables him to provide for it in advance."
An electricity, steam-heating, ice-manufacturing, and commercial
gauge company, 150 employees, "Accepted as a just method of han-
dling the injuries to employees who in the past have been neglected;
also protects corporations from questionable lawyers getting
employees to be disloyal to their employers." A cement-manufac-
turing company with 285 employees, "We regard the Michigan work-
men's compensation law as one of the best yet passed by any of the
States, and we accepted it because we think it gives a square deal to
both employer and employee and puts the ' ambulance chasers ' out
of business." A sugar-refining company having from 400 to 500
employees, "We believe the act to be conservative and fair both to
employer and employee, and would do away very largely, if not
172 WOKKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
entirely, with the lawsuits arising from employees being urged by a
certain class of attorneys to sue their employers for some real or
imagined grievance." A furniture company, 400 employees, "The
inequitable adjustment (substantially extortion) generally existing
between the attorney and injured claimant; also in the hope that we
would be relieved from the ambulance-chasing attorney." A copper-
mining company, 200 employees, "Believe it is right and proper, and
leaves a better feeling between employer and employee." A light-
ing and traction company, 150 employees, "We thought it to the
best interest of our employees as well as ourselves." A motor-manu-
facturing company having over 12,000 employees, "Because we
believe it to be much better for all parties interested than the old
law, including the State." Another motor-manufacturing company
with 1,400 employees, "Consider the act as it stands best for employee
and employer; after one year's trial, very satisfactory." A copper-
mining company, 389 employees, "Consider it fairer and better for
both parties." A steel-products manufacturing company, 500
employees, "It is at present the fairest method of dealing with this
problem, both to employee and employer. If changed and made
more stringent we will probably refuse it." A salt and lumber manu-
facturing company, 485 employees, " For the reason that it fixes the
compensation to be paid, thereby doing away with long and expensive
legal controversies." A company manufacturing woodenware and
lumber, 450 employees, "Willing to give it a trial; also as a matter of
policy. It is really compulsory, for one not under the act would have
practically no defense against suit. All at issue would be amount
of damages, and prefer to have that fixed by law than left to a jury."
A firm of ship and engine builders employing 1,000 to 2,000 persons
gives this reply: "(1) It was made practically compulsory to accept
the law, because if not accepted the penalties are too great to risk;
(2) because the Michigan law is a reasonable one and fixes an employ-
er's liability, making it possible to adjust accident claims on a busi-
ness basis without lawyers, court costs, and delays." An electric
traveling crane company says, "All defense removed by law if act re-
jected." A coal-mining company, 3,000 employees, "Couldn't afford
not to. Act, though theoretically elective, practically is compulsory."
A wholesale lumber and planing mill, 200 employees, replies, "Com-
pulsion"; similar answers come from a lumber company, 150
employees; another with 300 employees; a wholesale hardware firm,
200 employees ; a malleable castings company, 600 employees ; a paper-
manufacturing company, 200 employees; an iron-mining company,
275 employees; a maker of sash doors and interior finish, 200 em-
ployees; a jobbing foundry, 500 employees; an engine and thrasher
company, 400 employees; a gas company, 1,200 employees; a Detroit
lumber company, 450 employees. "Tx> escape lawyers and litiga-
tion" was the reason given, in varied phraseology, by: A foundry and
metal-manufacturing company, 175 employees; a lumber-manufac-
turing company, 425 employees; a building-material company, 20
employees; an iron-ore-mining company, 45 employees; a brewing
and malt-liquor company, 36 employees; a company, "school and
auditorium seating," 300 employees. The answer, "Because we
believe it a good act for both employer and employee," is in one form
or another given by many firms, large and small; for example, "We
thought it was better to have compensation fixed and also to know
ACCEPTANCES AND REJECTIONS. 173
that the employee would get all his due." A railroad company, 5,000
employees, "Very satisfactory." An automobile-manufacturing
company, 5,000 employees, "Because we considered the act as just
and necessary." A pharmaceutical and candy manufacturing com-
pany, 1,000 employees, "Fair and just." Automobile-body manu-
facturers, 200 employees, "Believe it fco be fair to all concerned."
Other returns give a business reason for acceptance in a word or a
brief phrase: "Policy," "To try it," "Worthy of trial," "To get
definite liability." Approval of the act is expressed in vet other
returns: A department store, 800 employees, "Thought it a good
thing"; a knitting company with 550 employees, "Good act"; a firm
manufacturing automobile parts and gray iron and having a brass
foundry, 3,500 employees, "Considered it beneficial to employees";
a furnace company, 160 employees, "We think it a good act and saves
litigation"; an air-rifle company, 100 employees, "A stated amount
is fixed for specific injuries. Possibility of lawsuits avoided"; a com-
pany manufacturing optical goods, 140 employees, " It fixes the cost
of accidents of all kinds to employees, does away with litigation,
pleases employee and employer."
Reasons for rejecting the act. — In Michigan, employers have so
generally accepted the act that we received little information as to
rejections, although a furniture manufacturing company, with 150
e mployees, replied that he had rejected the act upon " advice received
from our attorney"; a cigar manufacturer, with 500 employees,
" Owing to methods and nature of our business, the risk is very-
slight"; a manufacturer of brushes, 12 employees, "We have not
considered our work such as to require the investment"; a lumber
company, 300 employees, "Prefer to see how it works out before
accepting"; a general merchandise and logging company, 20 em-
ployees, wrote, "Too expensive; have decided to carry our own
risk."
NEVADA.
Reasons for accepting the act. — In Nevada the acceptances of the
act arise from "protection at less rate than any other insurance."
But in each case of acceptance reported the number of employees
is small; in no case are there more than 20.
Reasons for rejecting the act. — The rejections, on the other hand,
come in part from firms or corporations employing wage earners by
the hundreds. A railway company, with 413 employees, writes,
"During the fiscal year ending June 30, 1913, we paid to employees
on account of injuries and deaths, $2,718.50. If, during that period,
we had been operating with the compensation act in force we would
have paid into the State insurance fund $7,987.05. Our interests
therefore are in settling such claims direct." A department store
having 80 persons on the pay roll, regarded the State insurance as
"too expensive." A firm engaged in "agriculture and live stock,"
with 75 employees, says, "We believe it cheaper to reject." Small
employers — such as barbers, bankers, druggists, hotel keepers, cigar
dealers — held these occupations as "not hazardous." One employer
reports, "Law is crude and needs amending"; another, "We think
the rate charged too high for risk involved, as the act covers injury
only"; another, "Already too much red tape connected with the
business."
174 WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
NEW HAMPSHIRE.
Reasons for accepting the act. — From New Hampshire the returns
do not indicate a widespread discussion of the law. Among the
acceptances the principal desire expressed is encouragement of
justice. A printing plant with 20 employees, " wanted to recognize
progressive legislation." A firm manufacturing granite memorials,
To comply with what we consider a fair law." A dressing mill and
shook factory proprietor, "I believe the act a good thing and the
liability companies the worst kind of a monopoly."
Reasons for rejecting the act. — One employer, whose shoe manu-
factory has 1,100 employees, states as his reason for not accepting
the law, "The objection that we find is in the section that gives the
employee the privilege to elect after the accident whether he will
accept compensation or pursue the common -law rights. The other
sections of the law seem to be entirely fair and it would seem to us
that in case both the employer and employee could agree to operate
under the law, neither having the privilege of making a change after
an accident, that it would be preferable to the common law." A
cotton-goods mill company reports, " Partly inaction and partly
because it is a one-sided contract." A company manufacturing
woolens, lt Principally that we considered the law was not what it
should be, and until a new law was made we should be governed by
the provisions of our insurance policies." A paper manufacturing
company, " Because of legal advice — advise from liability insurance
people, and our reading and understanding of the law as placed upon
the statute. We believe in compensation for sickness and unavoidable
accidents; we do not believe an employer should be responsible for
accidents due to drink or carelessness or sickness caused by these
things. We consider the law a very one-sided arrangement." A
company manufacturing cutlery and hardware specialties, "We
believe a more reasonable and just settlement can be made under the
common law." A company manufacturing worsted yarns and tops,
" There is no advantage in our paying any very great amount for
accident insurance, especially since we would have to pay a high rate
to average up with those industries where the accidents are much
more frequent and serious." Granite works, "The employee does not
accept nor does he have to. By accepting the law, liability insurance
rates are increased and we can not see where the advantage is to the
employer." A wood manufacturing firm, "We have an employers'
liability insurance and know just what we have to pay for each
year."
NEW JERSEY.
In New Jersey, where, under the statute, the employer comes under
the compensation provisions of the act unless he serves notice that he
rejects the same, the majority of employers neglected to state their
reason for accepting the act, while a great many others gave as their
reason the compulsory nature of the act; other employers stated that
they did so for the purpose of avoiding litigation and having amount
of their liability definitely known.
On the other hand, the answers of some of the employers showed
that their acceptance was based upon the ground that they believed
ACCEPTANCES AND KEJECTIONS. 175
the compensation act to be fair to both employer and employee. As
one employer, with a pay roll of $300,000 per annum, stated, "We
believe that the principle of workmen's compensation is sound and
that the plan is equitable and just. The elimination of the fellow-
servant risk alone was a needed and necessary reform."
One large employer, with a pay roll of $3,000,000 annually, has
rejected the act for the reason that he prefers to carry on his own
scheme of compensation, while a small employer employing three
persons rejected the act for the reason that he thought it ought not
to apply to small employers.
Reasons for accepting the act. — Commendation of the act is
expressed by lar^e firms, as follows: Manufacturers of cotton spe-
cialties, 950 employees, " We though it fair to both employer and
employee." Iron works, machinists, and founders, 1,000 employees,
" Because we belie\e in it." Pottery manufacturers, 500 employees,
"It is our desire to comply with and even go further than the State
law in order to help our employees. " A company manufacturing elec-
trical apparatus, 460 employees, "We believe compensation act to be
fair for both employee and employer." A brewing corporation, 360
employees, "We believe that the principle of workmen's compensa-
tion is sound and that the plan is equitable and just. The elimina-
tion of the fellow-servant risk alone was a needed and necessary
reform." Iron foundry, 140 employees, "Believe it is fair and equi-
table and practicable." Manufacturers of coal-tar products, 198 em-
ployees, "Seems fair to us." Some employers regarded the act as
compulsory in their case : A ladies' wear manufacturer, 150 employees,
says, "Accepted, because we have to." Glass manufacturing com-
pany, 1,100 employees, "Because it is the law of the State." Brick
manufacturer, 50 employees, "All defenses taken away by the new
law." Other returns give business reasons only: "We have not
rejected it, which automatically means acceptance," a firm of con-
tractors and dealers in coal and building materials, 50 employees.
'To avoid litigation," cotton work, etc., 150 employees. "We had,
hoped it would do away with law suits," fine chemicals, 275 employ-
ees. "To limit liability," electric contractors, 20 employees.
Reasons for rejecting the act. — In the few reports of rejecting the
act in New Jersey, no reasons for the step are given.
OHIO.
Reasons for accepting the act. — The Ohio act becoming compulsory
January 1, 1914, this fact is given as the main reason for already com-
ing under the law in the case of about 10 per cent of the employers
reporting. Of those who accepted the act at an early date after its
passage, many say their desire was to be just, to promote peace with
their employees, and to have claims against them settled promptly.
In other cases economy is mentioned as the leading reason, fortified,
however, by other motives. The short time during which the Ohio
law has been in operation is frequently brought to the investigators'
attention. The following replies are typical as showing the attitude
of employers toward the act while it was yet optional : A manufacturing
company, 60 employees, "We wished to give our men the protection."
Company drilling deep wells for oil and gas, 60 employees, "We think
it is a needed reform, a step toward a better understanding between
176 WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
employer and employee." Company manufacturing face brick,
100 employees, " Cheaper than employers' liability insurance and
more just to employees." Coal company, retailers of coal and build-
ers' supplies except lumber, 9 employees, " Accepted because we feel
that it relieves us of danger of suit in case of accident, which is
likely to put a small firm to the bad. It gives the employees an arbi-
trator to see that they receive just compensation." Manufacturers
of soap and laundry supplies, " We favor that part of the act that pro-
tects the employee by paying a specified amount, without court costs
and attorney fees." Company manufacturing dashes and fenders for
vehicles, 100 employees, " We believe it to be a just law both for the
employer and employee." Bedding company, manufacturers of mat-
tresses, 46 employees, " First, from a humanitarian standpoint; sec-
ond, because the indemnity insurance put this company in the posi-
tion of antagonism to the just claims of its employees for injuries
sustained, whereas under the State act we can work hand in hand with
our injured employee to see that he gets a just compensation, while
at the same time self-interest makes us see that no unjust awards are
paid." Furniture company, manufacturers, 60 employees, " Looked
very good and is good. Company mining coal and manufacturing
coke, 200 employees, " Thought it best for employees, also our com-
pany." Canners of fruits and vegetables, 100 to 600 employees,
Justice to employees and protection to employer." Coal-mining
company, 150 employees, "State rate is only 18 cents per $100 higher
than liability insurance, and employees receive benefit in case of
accident or death without legal proceedings; also State law is com-
pulsory after December 31, 1913." Private hospital for the sick, 100
employees, "Believe it to be a good thing." Motor company,
gasoline motors for automobiles and trucks, 60 employees, "We be-
eved it to be fair both to employees and employers." Rolling-mill
company, rolling iron and steel bars, 600 employees, "Principally on
account of the compensation feature, as we considered that one of the
new conditions which must be met by all employers. Also on account
of the complete protection as compared with the limited protection
of the ordinary insurance policy." Roofing and asbestos materials,
400 employees, "We believed the workman would get what he was
entitled to without the expensive legal cost and that he would be bet-
ter satisfied by the State's decision." Clay-products company, manu-
facturing paving block and building block, 43 employees, "More
economical, and the employees will receive the benefit instead of
insurance companies' lawyers." Printing works company, 70 em-
ployees, "We thought it would be an improvement over the regular
liability companies, and it has proven so." Shoe-machinery con-
cern, 20 employees, "Accepted because under the Ohio law we felt
that all moneys paid in went toward paying the injured 'employee
instead of lawyers or investors in insurance companies." Art works,
500 employees, "We regard it the best protection for the least cost
we ever had. It is a good thing for the employee and the employer."
Shoe company, 1,750 employees, "We believe our law equitable to
both employer and employed."
Reasons for rejecting the act. — Refusal to accept the act in Ohio has
usually been based on the high rates to be borne, especially by large
employers in occupations not deemed by them hazardous. While
ACCEPTANCES AND REJECTIONS. 177
the law soon becomes compulsory, the following replies are given as
testimony bearing on the general discussion of the question: Hy-
draulic machinery, gas, and gasoline engines company, 125 employees:
" We are entirely satisfied with our present arrangement for liability
insurance, and it is such that we need not be concerned with it, as
regards settlement with injured; too expensive and caused men to
lay off for two or three weeks when they were not hurt very much;
mash a toe or finger and get two-thirds pay from State while disabled.
Lots of them would never have quit work if the State did not pay
them. I think the settlements were satisfactory to the men, as they
could get along very well on two-thirds pay. We found it encouraged
men to get hurt and they were not hurt nearly as badly as they let
on to be." Company manufacturing soap, candles, glycerine, etc.,
90 employees: "Were carrying liability insurance; did not change
as State premium rate was higher." Manufacturers of stoves and
ranges, 650 employees: "We shall have until the end of the year to
decide." Company manufacturing vehicles as assembled, 50 em-
ployees: "Rate is too high, making total cost entirely too much."
Tool company, manufacture of oil, gas, and artesian well tools,
machinery and supplies for same, 95 employees: "Rates so much
higher than regular insurance companies are charging." Company
manufacturing sectional bookcases, filing cabinets, etc., 1,400 em-
ployees: "Rate too high; have decided to take chances of non-
compliance." Steel company, rolling steel plates and sheets, 200
employees: "Rate too high; also entails a great amount of detailed
clerical work usually taken care of by insurance company." A com-
pany with 450 employees: "Payments by our company and prede-
cessors in 30 years on account of accidents have not aggregated
$5,000. Under present law premium would have aggregated
$60,000."
RHODE ISLAND.
Reasons for accepting the act. — In Rhode Island the reason given
usually is that the "provisions of the act made it practically compul-
sory." In one case, "Insurance company told us to accept it."
Economy and freeing the employer from uncertainties in outlay were
shown in such replies as: "To avoid risk and litigation" ; "Could get
a better insurance rate by accepting than by rejecting it"; "It fur-
nished legal means to stop disputes and suits and settle cases of acci-
dents"; "Elimination of the 'shyster lawyer' and a large liability
judgment having to be paid in a lump sum, which might seriously
cripple a small concern." Another set of reasons runs : "Believe that
under the law the employee will receive more and the employer pay
less than in the past," manufacturer of machine tools, 100 employees;
"Better than common law liability for us and for help"; "Our own
protection and benefit of our employees," founders and machinists,
250 employees; "Thought it advantageous and saving trouble and
litigation," department store, 820 employees. One reply is: "For
its definiteness; money paid goes to the injured party; not shared
by others," cotton manufactory, 625 employees.
Reasons for rejecting the act. — The act was not accepted by some
employers simply through their negligence, according to their reports.
One, mentioning the amount that accidents have cost him this year
30003— S. Doc. 419, 63-2 12
178 WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
declares his intention to come in under the act. A small employer
writes: " Never considered the act; working right in with help and
looking for safety of all as far as possible; only one slight accident
in five years." No deep discussion of its terms comes from any of
those who have rejected the Rhode Island law. One man says:
"Altogether too one-sided; an employee can scratch his skin and get
damages."
WISCONSIN.
Reasons for accepting the act. — Of the Wisconsin employers report-
ing that they have accepted the act, the largest proportion assign as
their reason for doing so "the taking away of all our defenses," or
" Forced to accept compensation by latest revision of the act," or
"Had to come under the law by September 1, 1913, or elect to stay
out," or in other words expressing the one idea that "it would be
safer under the law than to be outside." However, other reasons
given signify faith in the law, a desire to give it a fair trial, or a hope
that under its operation there might, and probably would, be a
decrease of friction with employees, of costs through engaging
counsel, and of the annoyances through protracted litigation arid
postponed settlements. A considerable number of the replies speak
of humanitarian motives as actuating acceptance. A company
having 200 employees writes: "Believe in it strongly as fairer to the
men." Another company, with 310 employees, writes, "We want
the men to get what is due them instead of insurance companies and
lawyers." An employer with 30 persons on his pay roll says, "Be-
cause we believe that the employee should receive compensation for
injury according to a fixed schedule, regardless of fault." A com-
pany manufacturing automobile frames and parts, 700 employees in
summer and 1,300 in winter, says, "We felt it ought to be fairer to
the workmen than the common law." A concern with 50 to 75
employees reports, "To avoid spending money for litigation that
should belong to the insured." A box manufacturing company with
20 employees writes, "Our reason for accepting State compensation
is that it will benefit the employee as well as the employer, inasmuch
as it will eliminate lawyers' fees on both sides and injured employee
will receive full amount of compensation awarded him by commission."
A manufacturer of box snooks, crating and wire reels, 75 employees,
"Wanted the State to protect us and in our opinion the liability was
less." A company manufacturing tires and rubber goods, 1,000 to
1,300 employees, "Practically compulsory." Other replies run:
"Does away with lawsuits;" "Best for all^ concerned;" "The best
way out of difficulties caused by unjust claims;" "Just and certain
compensation, quick relief, and no lawyers' bills." One reply was,
"To try it;" another, "Cheaper in our opinion;" a third, "We
believe in it."
Reasons for rejecting the act. — The majority rejecting the act say
there is little or no probability of accidents in their respective occu-
pations. So report a cigar manufacturer, a firm of practicing attor-
neys, a maker of sheet-metal work and hardware, a real estate dealer,
a nrm carrying on a general store, a retail druggist, and several dry
goods houses. The other principal cause of rejection is the high cost.
A firm making canoes, rowboats, etc., says under this heading, "The
insurance rate for us would be $2.45. All our employees, except two
ACCEPTANCES AND REJECTIONS. 179
men, do light hand work where there is very little danger of getting
hurt. In all our experience, covering a period of over 26 years, we
have not known of anyone getting hurt beyond a mere scratch in this
department. But we would be required to carry insurance on our
entire pay roll.7' A company manufacturing turned wooden- ware
and tight cooperage writes, "Our reasons for rejecting it are many.
First we are not in sympathy with the law because it takes away the
right of jury trial entirely, wnich is guaranteed to us under the Consti-
tution. It takes away our defense, whether we accept or reject the
law. It places our business under the jurisdiction and dominion of a
political commission, who have the right if we go under the law to
make an examination of our business at any time. It is paternal
and socialistic. Since the introduction of the law it has increased
the number of accidents in our factory by over 100 per cent. If a
man can cut a finger and lay off for two or three weeks, draw his
wages, have a doctor's and hospital bill paid, with all medicine, he
would rather do it than work. As far as we are concerned, the
compensation act of Wisconsin has damaged our business more than
we can estimate."
NO. 7. SUGGESTIONS BY EMPLOYERS FOB AMENDMENT OF LAWS.
"Do you suggest any changes in your compensation law?" This
question brought more replies than any other in the list sent by the
commission to employers in the States having compensation acts.
The answers from each State fell naturally into classification, each
bearing on some provision or lack of provision in the particular law.
In making up the following chapter, replies typical of those from
every one of the classes have been selected, repetition being avoided
to the extent possible. Every distinct suggestion, it is believed,
has a place here. While the impressions of the small employers
have been given considerable attention in this symposium, it is to be
kept in mind that the large employers usually have a proportion-
ately greater experience in dealing with payment for accidents, and
therefore their views of the laws are perhaps less liable to be in-
fluenced by unlikely probabilities. The wide range of suggestions
in certain of the States is evidence not only of the lively interest in
the problem of compensation, but more especially of the stage of
education with regard to the subject attained oy employers in general.
From the point of view of criticism of the law as it stands in each
State investigated, the suggestions afford a summary of the attitude
of the employers of the State toward the whole question of compen-
sation. On the whole, the expressions of the authors of the replies
constitute a verdict favorable to the policy, yet new, as it is, to the
United States. The information here given the public is trust-
worthy. It is first hand. It is not drawn from the domain of con-
jecture. It stands for dollars and cents expended and to be ex-
pended. It is given in earnest; not one of the responses here re-
corded but was set down on reflection and with the purpose of im-
parting fact to the minds of other men engaged in the same complex
social task which, in its financial phase, is at once personal and public.
If a few of the opinions permit the inference of hasty formation or
exaggerated expression, the writers can not complain of being ignored
in the investigations and readers are given the opportunity of weigh-
ing the propositions coming from all sides and from every set of
proponents. It being the aim of the commission to embody in its
report if not all, at least all the salient points, of view brought forth
in this nation-wide discussion, the suggestions have been adjudged
worth while the space accorded them in these pages.
CALIFORNIA.
The California reports divide themselves, with regard to suggestions
for changes, into three classes. The majority omit replying; half the
others plead inexperience with the law or refer to its brief existence
as good reason for not suggesting amendments. The remainder give
a variety of opinions as to improvement, the following being examples :
Acetylene, oxygen welding, cutting and equipment company, 12
employees: "It is our belief, based on experience, that rates are not
180
SUGGESTIONS BY EMPLOYEES. 181
always fair. Improvements in equipment and incidental safety made
possible thereby should be taken into consideration. This applies
particularly to newer lines of industry." Manufacturers of electric
heating appliances, 450 employees: "Law coming into force January 1,
1914, carries provision for State insurance. We are not sure tnat
this is wise, as we think insurance and politics not liable to make
good mixture. We believe in compensation." Construction com-
pany, 250 employees: "We think the law should be so that all
employers must accept the State act and that the State should
insure." Interurban railway company, operating standard-gauge
railroad, 30 employees: "Settlement on basis of provisions should be
made compulsory on part of employer and employee alike, to eliminate
employee bringing suits." Realty company, 12 employees: l 'Fre-
quent warnings to property owners and employers through the news-
papers that it is their duty to themselves, to employees, and the
public to provide every safeguard against accident. If accidents
occur for reason of sidewalk, elevator, or trapdoors remaining open,
a State law should regulate the use of same." Wholesale grocery,
6 employees: "Repeal. Injurious to business." Planing mill com-
pany, 15 employees: "If the State undertakes to insure employees,
it should make an absolute guarantee with a fair tax to owners."
Mining company, 450 employees: "The act has been satisfactory
to us under present administration. Our criticism is that an almost
unlimited power is invested in a few men appointed by the governor."
Drugs, 3 employees: "State insurance and law applying to all em-
ployers." Department store, 500 employees: "The only possible
flaw in the compensation act of California is the unlimited liability
for medical attendance. While liability for injury itself is limited to
three years' earnings, and in no event to exceed $5,000, liability
for medical attendance is not defined, which may cause difficulty.
Physicians knowingly may take advantage of this and render exces-
sive bills. The act takes effect on January 1, 1914, and the difficul-
ties are not suppositions, though not unlikely to be borne out by
practice."
ILLINOIS.
The majority of the reports from Illinois contain no suggestions
for changes in the compensation law of the State. This may be
interpreted either as satisfaction with the act or (the reason given in
several cases) as reluctance to seek amendment before the new sys-
tem has had a fair trial. Following are replies to this question, given
as indicative of the variety of views held on the law: Manufacturers
of special machinery, 100 employees, "We suggest that a law be
passed same as in England, compelling physicians to give their serv-
ices for personal-injury cases at a rate fixed by the State." Manu-
facturers of small electric motors, 60 employees, "In our opinion the
law gives too much protection to the careless, shiftless employee and
enables him to take advantage of the employer." Manufacturers of
parlor frames, 125 employees, "In case arbitration is necessary,
injured person should be taken care of in the interim." A company
manufacturing hardware and woodenware specialties, 50 employees,
"Make it compulsory and have it taken over by State." Fabricators
and erectors of structural steel and bridges, 175 employees, "Should
be made compulsory on both employees and employers and cover
182 WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
every kind of labor. The compensation should be so plain that there
could be no question regarding amount. Laws should be uniform
in all States." A carriage-body company, 140 employees, " Would
suggest that employer be relieved from payment when it is shown
that employee suffered injury or accident wholly through his or her
own carelessness." A company manufacturing farm machinery, 275
employees, " Employees should be made to pay a proportion of their
wages for this protection. Permanent disability clause too much in
favor of injured. Too much in favor of employee all the way
through." A steel foundry, 2,500 employees, "Late amendments to
Illinois laws made schedule of settlements in various permanent,
injury cases, which was a good improvement, for obvious reasons."
A lumber company, 160 employees, "Our observation, based on one
case in our own experience, is that there should be some way of en-
forcing a settlement, either with or without a board of arbitration,
so that an award would be final and not left to the option of either
party." A company manufacturing pumps, 125 to 150 employees,
"The only suggestion we have to make is that all manufacturers
should be obliged by the Government to join into a cooperative
society according to the various hazards. We, for example, have
paid to insurance companies during the past two years over $2,000,
and our employees during the past two years have received but $70
of that amount." Manufacturers of barrels, 60 to 100 employees,
"Think rate much too high." A job-printing company, 125 em-
ployees, "Compensation law should have universal application.
Excepting the farmer from its provision makes the law class legisla-
tion and unconstitutional, in our opinion." Furniture works, 90
employees, "The employee should be held responsible for negligence."
A piano company, manufacturers, 200 employees, "If employer pro-
vides safeguards and employee rejects them, he should be deprived
of all benefits in case of accident, because most employees refuse to
work on machines without removing guards." A light and power
company, "Where an employer insures his pay roll in an insurance
company acceptable to the insurance department of the State, he
should be released from further responsibility regarding accidents.
Minnesota law just going into effect includes this release." A coal-
mining company, 1,100 employees, "Believe law should be com-
pulsory and think State, employer, and employee should contribute."
Implement manufacturers, 2,000 employees, "Some of the most
necessary changes were made in the new law when it became oper-
ative, July 1, 1913. Compensation should be made as definite as
possible for the various permanent injuries to avoid disagreements.
Where such do occur, arbitration method should be simple and
rapid, to avoid necessity for attorneys. Cash settlement for the
lesser permanent injuries (loss of eye or one or two fingers) is best,
as in most cases the employee returns to work at same wages and
profits more by having the lump sum. There are exceptions, how-
ever." A company manufacturing lithographed tin boxes and cans
and metal specialties, 100 employees, "The Illinois law should be
made more specific." Wire and iron works, 115 employees, "Think
a State should provide the insurance in an efficient way or make some
arrangement to avoid the profit and expense of insurance companies
in writing the business and taking care of it, so as to secure a square
deal for employee at least possible cost to employer." Sheet-metal
SUGGESTIONS BY EMPLOYEES. 183
works, 25 employees, "We believe the employees, the employer, and
the State should join in fund under State administration. This
would insure. The present method lacks permanency and certainty.
Germany has the correct idea. As we understand it, the idea behind
compensation laws is threefold: First, to relieve the State of the care
of the dependent population which results from industrial accidents;
second, to relieve those who are injured and their dependents, as far
as possible, in a financial way from the results of these accidents;
third, to load upon the employing class a definite known change,
instead of an indefinite possible charge as it has been in the past.
Purely as a matter of justice, any person or any class of persons who
are benefited should contribute." Machine shop, 120 employees,
"Consider same unconstitutional, as it takes away from the employer
all right of defense allowed originally by Constitution of United
States."
KANSAS.
A feature of the reports from Kansas is the number of suggestions
to change the period of beginning compensation from two weeks
to one. For example: Soda-ash manufacturers, 150 employees: "No
provision for loss of time or medical service for accidents resulting
in less than two weeks' incapacity is a hardship on the workman.
Half tune and half the physician's bill would be a reasonable compe-
tence during such incapacity. In some cases, due to circumstances,
we have allowed full doctor's bill." Other suggestions and com-
ments under this heading are as follows: General job printing, 8 em-
ployees: "Our law is wrong in principle, as it assesses damages against
the employer in favor of the employee; in instances where the em-
ployer has not wronged the employee, 'compensation' is a mis-
nomer." General contractor, 50 employees: "The law is all right for
concerns of large capital who can afford to pay the loss, while a man
of smaller means might be seriously crippled, and his only safety is
to carry insurance at an expensive premium." Brick and tile com-
pany, 300 employees: "Rate of loss to the employee has been the first
two weeks immediately following his accident, including, of course,
his first-aid and hospital fees. For this reason we are recommending
the early adoption of a compensation act that will compel reasonable
compensation for the time lost by the employee and give full surgical
aid and hospital fees. In other words, insure the employee for the
two weeks not now covered by the compensation act, and give to
him in addition his doctor fees and hospital fees, which are the dread
of his life." Meat packing, ice making, and cold storage, 60 employees:
"We think compensation should be contributed to by State, employer,
and employee, and the fund administered by representative from
each of the three, to be just and equitable and to save unnecessary
waste, so the injured would obtain as near 100 per cent as possible."
Desiccating eggs and freezing eggs, 30 employees: "Should be national.
Reason: Employers in States without compensation laws have ad-
vantage in competing for interstate business." Buff brick and manu-
facturing company, 175 employees: "Should apply to farmers." Oil-
refining company, 45 employees: "Since the compensation law re-
moves most of the defenses heretofore available in case of accident,
on the theory that the employee's family should not suffer in case of
184 WOKKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
accident, and as corporations are made liable whether negligent or
not, it would appear that the whole matter rests upon the theory that
it is protection to society in general, and in that case society in gen-
eral should be made to bear the burden except where the corporation
is shown to be clearly negligent and at fault. There is a possibility
that a corporation might be made bankrupt by an accident for which
it was not responsible and which could not by any foresight be pre-
vented, and which occurred through neglect of rules and use of safety
devices by an employee after all possible precautions had been taken
to prevent the trouble. This points to State insurance as a solution
of the problem — an assuming by society as a whole of the burdens of
the individual where the burdens are unavoidable." Coal-mining
company, 100 employees: "As Kansas State law now is, the company
can elect to come under its provisions; also laborers. We believe
that if company comes under law, the employees of such company
should be made to come under also. We also believe that a State
board of adjustment, whose ruling on damage cases or accidents
would be final, with fixed compensation based on earnings and tune
of disability as a basis to make adjustments, would be the proper way
to handle same. We would also suggest a law governing contingent
fees for lawyers, whereby only a reasonable charge could be made by
a lawyer, and all settlements to be made through court, who would be
responsible to lawyer for his fee. In line with this we might add that
the worst evil we have to contend with is the unscrupulous lawyer,
who not only preys on the employer but extracts an exorbitant fee
from the injured, thereby robbing the injured and misdirecting the
intent of the laws of compensation."
MASSACHUSETTS.
Massachusetts reports, while in general indicating a sentiment
in favor of the act as it is, in some cases protest against payments
in case of the employee's negligence. Many of the reports also assert
that the rates are too high. A classification of industries is suggested.
A company manufacturing wholesale and retail men's clothing, 630
employees, "The needle trades do not offer much hazard to workers,
and, in view of the risk, our premiums are much too high. Each
trade should be classified, Avith a rate of its own." The subjoined
suggestions include the various views expressed: A mill company,
525 employees, "The only change suggested in the compensation act
would be that in cases of death the dependents of the deceased work-
men be allowed to arrange with the insurance companies for a lump
sum settlement, rather than be forced to wait for at least six months,
receiving compensation on the weekly wage schedule during this
time." A cotton cloth manufacturing company, 1,475 employees,
"There should be in the law more specialization as to the nature of
injuries and compensation therefor. .Instances: A hand receives
serious injury to head and receives no compensation for injury only
for the time out. A hand loses entire thumb and receives less com-
pensation than for loss of ends of two fingers. Individuals, firms,
or corporations should be allowed to insure themselves, accepting,
however, the provisions of the compensation act, thereby receiving
the protection of the act against suits under the common law." A
sewing-machine company, 700 employees, "We feel as though re-
SUGGESTIONS BY EMPLOYEES. 185
sponsible employers should be allowed to carry their own risk and settle
with their employees on the basis of the rates established by the com-
pensation act. In 1912 we paid at full-pay rates only $734.53 for
injuries, and doctors' bills were $56 more. This is of course small,
but larger than in many preceding years. We are, however, con-
templating taking out insurance to protect against the possibility
of some serious accident. " A firm of attorneys, "The writer believes
in the theory of the compensation law, but regards the rate of com-
pensation paid to the injured workman as too small in many instances
under the Massachusetts act." A foundry company, 75 employees,
"The cost of insurance is so great to the employer that the recompense
to the employee in most cases looks decidedly small. It would seem
as though a better adjustment might be made." A shoe-manufac-
turing company, 300 employees, "Think the time for compensation
should begin after the first week, and not the second, as this is a
hardship on many employees." A laundry, 35 employees, "Full
compensation from time of accident, if not caused by disobedience."
A company manufacturing linen threads and twines, 500 employees,
"So far as our experience goes, the present law is satisfactory."
Shoe manufacturers, 5,000 employees, "We feel that in case of minor
injuries, the present compensation act works a hardship on the in-
jured employee. No doubt that in cases of more serious injury it is
beneficial. It also costs a shoe manufacturer nearly three times as
much as the previous insurance cost. As there are few people se-
riously injured in the shoe industry, we feel that it is a great hardship
on the manufacturer to have to pay this increased amount of insur-
ance." Manufacturers of paper goods, 2,000 employees, "Cut out
stock insurance companies. Principle will be preserved only through
mutuals and the best ideals of prevention finally developed only
through them." Importers, publishers, and dealers in pictures and
manufacturers of picture and mirror frames, 50 employees, "Have the
employee bear part of the expense, as in Germany." A grocery firm,
13 employees, "Protect both sides. The inability of the small
employer to give compensation in case of accident, and being obliged
to do so, means the wreckage of his entire business." An iron foun-
dry, 115 employees, "Let the man pay for his own injuries. Business
is already taxed too much." A printing company, 125 employees,
"I think the law fails when it doesn't give compensation from the
time the person is injured. In our State the injured does not receive
any compensation until the fifteenth day, although I believe there was
an amendment to the act last year which reduces it to ten days. Of
course there are good arguments which can be made on either side,
but it doesn't seem to me fair that we should enact a bill to guard
against imposition and fraud to the detriment of the honest work-
man." A shoe-machinery company, 4,000 employees, "An oppor-
tunity for self -insurance under proper restrictions and supervision.
Each concern would then pay not only according to the risk of the
business but also according to the risk of its method of conducting
that business. In other words, a factory doing efficient safeguarding
of machinery would obtain corresponding benefit." A soda fountain
company, 193 employees, "The Massachusetts law unquestionably
can be improved upon and we understand that several proposed
changes are in contemplation, but personally we have no recom-
mendations."
186 WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
MICHIGAN.
Of the Michigan replies fully a third offer no suggestions, while
another third speak well of the act or say that it is too early for
amendments or that they have as yet had no claims to pay, or in
other manner they signify reluctance in offering suggestions. Of
those commenting on the law, several favor a more prompt notifica-
tion of the claims than the act requires; others protest against paying
in cases of intoxication; others regard the rates as high. The fol-
lowing reports reflect the opinions of Michigan employers from various
points of view: A lumber manufacturing firm, 425 employees: "An
employee gets a slight injury, goes back to work, then quits, goes to
some other town, falls sick or gets some physician to back him up,
and then claims compensation for original injury. Would suggest
that if workman left his employer after injury without written per-
mission, he should waive that claim." A manufacturer of underwear
and hosiery, 60 employees: " It has not been in operation long enough
to judge, as we have had no practical experience with accidents, but
if practical I would cancel employer's liability in cases where men
became intoxicated and were unfit to carry out their obligations in
rendering service for wages received, and because of their condition
were injured. If the employee could be made to coinsure, as the
employer is compelled to do with fire insurance, it might prevent
some accidents which have been brought to my notice where the
employer was forced to pay for the death of an employee when the
expenses could have more justly been charged up against the man
who sold the liquor or the man who drank it." A paper company,
150 employees: "Cut out all compensation where employee is not
attending to his duties as ordered." A manufacturer of store, bank,
bar, and office fixtures, 35 employees: "Should be glad to welcome
any changes that would reduce our annual premium from the amount
it now is." An iron and aluminum foundry, 140 employees: "Too
much authority given the commission; no redress given employer.
We should be given opportunity to go to court in case of prejudiced
decision, which will happen as well as it has with courts, and one de-
cision should not be final, in our opinion." A manufacturing foundry
and machine shop, 95 employees: "Physical condition and age of
employee should be taken into consideration. Those so old as to be
practically pensioners should be taken care of to a less extent, or some
other way." A hardware merchant, 80 employees: "We do not like
the obligation to report every trivial accident. Much rather follow
old practice of taking care of the wounded in our own way." A
commercial photography, engraving, and printing company, 100
employees: "Part of the insurance should be carried by general tax —
approximately one-half. When accidents happen for which the
management is in no way responsible and could not have overcome,
it is an injustice for it to carry all the burden." A manufacturer of
wood pulleys and washboards, 300 employees: "Think present law
should have a longer test. Its worst features seem to be the tendency
to disbar from needed employment the old and physically weak, pen-
sioners, etc., whom the employer would continue through charity if
the burden were not so great." Brass works, manufacturers of
plumbing goods, 400 employees: "The method of appointing board of
compensation should be fixed to give the employer fair show. Present
SUGGESTIONS BY EMPLOYEES. 187
board is all for employee, and we have been obliged to threaten to
withdraw from law in order to get settlement in recent case." A
manufacturer of wooden ware, 15 employees: " As it stands, the manu-
facturer has no redress at all; he is obliged to carry heavy stock
insurance or run the risk of standing heavy damages. We would
suggest that the employee stand his own expenses unless the accident
was caused by the gross neglect of the employer." A lumber com-
pany, building material, and interior finishing, 20 employees: "Com-
pensation should cover all regular employees, regardless of occupa-
tion. Farm laborers and domestics should be included, we believe,"
A city gas company, 1,200 employees: " (1) Compensation should not
be extended where personal negligence can be shown by employer.
The present law and its enforcement tends to carelessness on the part
of employee. The employee should be compelled to assist in bet-
tering industrial conditions. (2) If above change were made, then I
would be in favor of starting compensation after first week of time
lost instead of at the end of second week." A coal operating associa-
tion (consisting of seven independent companies), 3,000 employees:
"Any change that will tend to lessen opportunity for petty legalized
graft will be welcomed. Otherwise act is very fair to all." Car-
penter contractor, 22 employees: "Make the employees pay a part of
the cost of insurance; then they would be responsible with the employer
and thus add to their care against accidents." A metal-stamping
company, 62 employees: "It seems to us that the employee's time
should be at the disposal of the employer while compensation is being
paid. It frequently happens in our business that a man's hands are
injured and prevent him from handling work at a punch press, but
leaving him in perfectly good shape for employment as a messenger
or doing other work about our plant that does not require the use of
the injured member. The present tendency is to stay at home and
loaf and to make a fellow slow in getting back to his job." Manu-
facturers of heavy chemicals, 1,500 employees, "Workmen to be
compelled to report accidents at time of same. We have had work-
men apply for compensation two months after accident — when acci-
dent was a minor one — and in one case claim was fraudulent. Em-
ployer should have full authority in selection of the physician." A
company manufacturing automobile steel rims, 50 employees, "We
understand that employers in this State are held liable for accidents
or injury to employees after business hours, even though employees
are through work for the day and are hanging around employer's
property, same also at noon hour. Consider this a bad loophole for
1 outside play.' ' Flour-mill company, 10 employees, "Repeal of the
public liability part of the act or law. Think it unjust to make
employers liable for accidents, on their premises, to persons not in
their emplov." A fuel and gas company, 125 employees, "Make
farmers liable for farm employees as well." Manufacturers of wood-
enware and lumber, 450 employees, "We have a very good law.
There is a little too much red tape — too much clerical work. Trivial
accidents should not be reported. Should not be necessary to make
payment weekly. A business concern would cut the clerical work in
half and then some. It is a burden on the State and also the em-
ployer and no one is benefited. Twice as many reports required as
are actually needed — burdensome, useless. The law should be made
to apply to every employer of labor, the farmer with his deadly corn
188 WOBKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
shredder, as well as the manufacturer with his protected machinery.
No injured person should become a burden on society. Ot erwise
we think we have a fine law, and even as it is we prefer it to the old
condition where we had to deal with the ambulance chasers. It is
also bringing about better feeling between employee and employer."
Sleeping garment mills, 80 employees, "Make absolutely clear those
conditions under which a workman can not recover or can not recover
fully; in other words, define clearly any responsibility the workman
is to have." Salt and lumber company, 485 employees, "Regulate
charges of physicians and do away with excessive charging." Whole-
sale hardware, 200 employees, "We might suggest that the employer
have some recourse in court. Our interpretation of the law is that if
one of our employees be injured we have no defense as the law now
stands." Hardware supply company, 43 employees, "Not now,
except that farmers should be compelled to come under the pro-
vision of the law just the same as manufacturers." Manufacturers
of light cars, 1,000 employees, "In our State think the time for filing
claims (three months) is too long, as it leaves matters open to fraud;
witnesses may be scattered and recollections of details confused."
Copper-mining company, 200 employers, "Injured employee's com-
pensation should be subject to garnishment for board and support."
rackers of canned fruits and vegetables, 300 employees, "Minimum
without compensation to injured employee should be reduced from
two weeks to one week. We pay all injured employees for all time
lost, and we should be reimbursed by our insurance company."
Company manufacturing brass furniture trimmings, 200 employees,
"Have all laws of labor national, so as to give all equal chances and
not burden one State to the benefit of others. This should certainly
include hoars of labor; we are working 9 hours and all other manu-
facturers of similar goods are working 10." Brush company, 125
employees, "Traveling salesmen and agents should be excepted" from
the law; too complex; they visit too many States, and questions
are liable to arise whether covered by insurance or not. Some carry
side lines for different people. Can't determine whether they are
actually in your employ 24 hours a day or not. Have other insur-
ance usually and law not necessary for their protection." Cooperage
and lumber company, 500 to 600 employees, "Law should be amended
to exclude from its benefits or compensation men injured who are
found to have been drinking or drunk to any extent, which employer
or representative in charge of such employee could not ascertain or be
aware of at tune of injury." Motor company, 250 employees,
"Think we should have more defense in case of willfull removing of
guards by workmen and doing things against rules and warnings."
Lumber company, 250 employees, "Law is all right now." Paper
company, 1,100 employees, "Think compensation should be paid by
State rather than by individual employers."
NEVADA.
From Nevada came very few suggestions as to changes in the law.
Drug company, 3 employees, "We believe the law should not include
such vocations as drug clerks, grocery clerks, dry goods and general
merchandise clerks, as we have never known a clerk to be injured while
on duty in these vocations, but many were hurt joy riding and various
SUGGESTIONS BY EMPLOYERS. 189
ways while off duty. We believe 98 per cent of the owners of stores
can spend an average lifetime and not have an accident with any
help employed. Where the probabilities are so remote it works an
unnecessary hardship on store owners to make pay-roll reports and
monthly remittances for the very small amounts." Department
store, 80 employees, "Lower rate. Been in business 12 years without
any loss, so rate seems excessive. We do carry auto insurance —
both for driver and accidents. This State rate would cost us about
$325 a year." Mining company, 5 employees, " Nothing said about
physician's fees, and compensation allowed will not pay his fee in
any instance." Clothing store, 8 employees, "It is a good proposi-
tion for employer and employee in any business or occupation where
there is a risk."
NEW HAMPSHIRE.
From New Hampshire, the only emphatic suggestion is from a
dressing mill and shook factory, 15 employees, "Make the law com-
pulsory and force the insurance companies out of business."
NEW JERSEY.
Among the suggestions contained in the reports from New Jersey
are the following: A brewery, 75 employees, "Insurance companies
should be compelled to pay full damages instead of only part."
Another brewing company, 150 employees, "Our Jersey law does
not require immediate report of accident by employee to employer,
which should be changed so that our employee must report an acci-
dent before leaving his work for the day to his superior or any other
superior. This would then prevent the repetition of the incident by
superior having knowledge of faulty machinery which caused acci-
dent. It would also eliminate the employer paying for accidents
not occurring during hours of employment or in discharge of duties."
A peach-basket and veneer manufacturer, 3 employees, "It should
be adjusted according to the business a person does." A chemical
company, tar products, 25 employees, "In the case of companies
which are not public-utilities companies, we think the law should be
less stringent in regard to accidents to nonemployees while they are
on the company's property." A glass manufacturing company,
1,100 employees, "If a man is injured, we should repair the damage,
if in our power, the same as if he were a machine that accidentally
fot broken or disabled while in our employ." An architect and
uilder, 50 employees, "Because of danger of falling, I am forced to
hire only young men. This is a hardship on the older ones, which
should not be. Household servants should not come under the law.
An employee's carelessness should cut some figure in compensation."
A firm manufacturing shoes, 50 employees, "Judges working for the
politicians. Employer always unjustly imposed upon. Make all
cases be tried before a jury. Have judges give the manufacturers a
chance and not cater to labor unions." Quarrymen, roadbuilders,
and dealers in coal and building material, 200 employees, "If we un-
derstand the latest amendments, allow the defense of negligence on
the part of the employer. We think the law to be a fair one."
Manufacturers of monumental work, 30 employees, "We favor com-
pulsory insurance by all employees — same as laws of Germany."
190 WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
OHIO.
As the Ohio law is to become compulsory on January 1, 1914, the
replies to the commission's questionnaires contained comparatively
few suggestions for changes. The following, however, refer to points
bearing on the general principles and the administration of compen-
sation laws:
Gas and powder company, 45 employees, "Federal governing in
all States, making our manufacturers in one State on an equal footing
with those in another State, if they must go into competition.'' Shoe
machinery company, 20 employees, " Would suggest that the
inspector of factories and the department of industrial insurance
cooperate, and that the factory inspection department report any
carelessness or neglect found in factories, relating to accident risks,
to the insurance department. Think every factory ought to be
inspected for the State either by the State factory inspector or the
insurance department at least once annually for the purpose of acci-
dent prevention." House painter, 6 employees, "I would make it
compulsory on everybody. All who employ five or more must
insure under this act; those employing less than five, may. Many
small concerns such as painters, plasterers, plumbers, tinners, elec-
tricians, etc., regularly employ less than five workmen. The em-
ployer of these concerns, who has a home or is ' worth something,'
must take out accident insurance in order to protect himself, thereby
adding from 1J to 2 per cent to his overhead expenses; but the man
who has nothing that you can levy on in case one of his employees
meets with an accident does not insure. This is not just to the
employee nor fair to the competitor who does insure. If everybody
insured under a compulsory law the rate would be reduced to a
minimum and not be a burden on anyone." Foundry company, oil
stoves, 1,200 employees, "We can not see the justice of requiring
from employers the payment to the State fund of 10 per cent of the
assessed premium when such employers desire and are financially
able to carry their own risk, and we have still to be convinced that
it is either necessary or desirable for the State to handle an insurance
fund and make payments direct to those who are injured." Art
glass works, leaded glass and glass beveling, 25 employees, "The
workmen in our opinion should pay 20 per cent instead of 10." Tool
company, oil, gas, and artesian well tools, machinery, and supplies
for same, 85 to 95 employees, " If employees were to pay a greater pro-
portion of the premium they would take the trouble to be more
careful — when they pay so small an amount they can afford to take
greater risks and be more careless knowing that their returns will be
considerably more than it has cost them." Lumber company, 250
employees, "Think the employee should pay 25 per cent of the
premium instead of 10, as this amount is so small it makes it impos-
sible to collect the amount when paying semimonthly." Manufac-
turers of metal wheels for agricultural implements, 300 employees,
"The employees should be obliged to contribute a small proportion
of the indemnity fund, thus relieving them of the stigma of charity
and impressing them with their share of the responsibility in avoiding
and preventing accidents." Soap and laundry supplies company,
"We believe all legitimate insurance companies should be allowed
to operate in any State, providing they can offer to the purchaser of
SUGGESTIONS BY EMPLOYEES. 191
insurance as good protection to both the employer and the employee
as the State can. The State of Ohio by its compulsory act practi-
cally prohibits competition and their manual will show that in most
cases their rates are a great deal higher than the employer formerly
paid." Machinery manufacturers, 50 employees, "Cheaper rates."
Company manufacturing wood furniture, 75 employees, "Lower rates,
of course, but one reduction has already been made, and it is reason-
able to expect further changes downward." Manufacturing com-
pany, 500 employees, "Rate is at least 50 per cent too high, but we
are promised a reduction so that each class will pay for actual losses
only, the compensation to be paid out of general fund. If this is
carried out the Ohio plan will be O. K." Brick company, pressed
sand lime brick, 20 employees, "The writer, originally opposed to the
State plan is now convinced that it is a very good law and believes
that when compulsory and the rates properly adjusted practically
every employer as well as employee will be satisfied. We will be
glad to have the compulsory feature in force, for at present none of
our competitors carry insurance of any kind and consequently do not
consider that item in the matter of costs. The original rate quoted
us was $1.35. This was later reduced to 85 cents and in July, this
year, the rate when we came under the State plan was 76 J cents.
This is less than we could buy liability insurance for at this writing."
Buggy company, 50 employees, "Reduce the rate. So long as we
can get a 33-cent rate of independent companies we do not feel justi-
fied in paying 50 to 80 cent rate." Confection company, 75 em-
ployees, "Increase of allowance to injured employee to $15 per week.
As it is now maximum allowance is $12. Believe average employee
can not get along on $12 after he loses one week as now required in
the act." Printing works company, 70 employees, "It's satisfac-
tory." Lumber company, 8 to 10 employees, "Very good as it is."
Manufacturers of various articles from brass, 35 employees, "The
Ohio law is in its infancy and, in our opinion, is excellent in its
ideas." Planing mill and lumber yard, 18 employees, "We are not
in favor of a State monopoly." Iron and steel company, rolling
mill, manufacturing structural tubing, railroad tie plates, and agri-
cultural implement shapes, 450 employees, "We dislike the com-
pulsory feature of the Ohio law, giving the State a complete monopoly
of the liability insurance business. We dislike the feature compelling
us to insure office clerks whose duties are entirely independent of the
mill operations and the risk on whom is practically nil. Employers
are not fully protected under this law, as the employee has the right
to sue under certain conditions regardless of whether the employer
has or has not accepted insurance or protection under the act."
Sheet and tube company, 8,000 employees, "Our principal objection
to the compensation law of the State is the fact that it does not en-
courage the prevention of accidents. For this reason we were op-
posed to it at the time it was being discussed, but as it seems to be
the most satisfactory law we could have passed, we are very glad to
go in under it and encourage it in every way we can, with the hope
that experience may prove the desirability of amending it to include
a feature which will tend to minimize accidents." Steel foundry
company, 300 employees, "Make it elective instead of compulsory,
so that State officers will be kept on their mettle and compelled to
administer their offices in an efficient manner." Glass company,
192 WOKKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
250-300 employees, "The State should not compel us to buy insur-
ance from them alone, to the exclusion of all others." Railway com-
pany, "The new compensation law of Ohio does not in fact apply to
railroads, section 51 eliminating at least 99 per cent of the employees.
The death schedule in the Ohio law is the blanket kind, and is objec-
tionable for the reason that it does not consider the age, relationship,
and number of the beneficiaries, treating all cases on the same basis."
Company manufacturing roofing and sheet metal and warm air fur-
naces, 60 employees, "We might offer the suggestion that the State
liability board make investigations at intervals of about six months
for the purpose of safeguarding employees." Pulp and paper com-
pany, 250 employees, "If we are forced to insure in the State, the law
should make us exempt from damage; or if sued by employees, State
should defend the case at its own expense." Leather company, 22
employees, "The employer is not protected against the expense of
lawsuit and damages as under the old liability companies. The em-
ployee still has his right to sue for damages, and there are very few
accidents for which the courts will not hold the company liable.
Under the compensation act the employee can collect both ways."
Woodworkers, 38 employees, "Compensation law should provide for
a final settlement; as it is, we have a large premium to pay and still
are liable to direct action." Painters, 10 employees, "I suggest that
all employers employing labor, regardless of the number in his
employ, be compelled to carry liability. This would class all in
equality to competition, especially in our trade. The majority of
JODS, whether a large employer or small, are being executed with
five men or less, and you will find that among such small groups
accidents occur as often, and maybe more often, than where a larger
number are employed. Take, for instance, our work on a scaffold
where two men usually work; this is where accidents mostly occur.
Why should employers in this class be exempt from the law ?" Book
company, 281 employees, "The classification of plants, rating them
according to the safety devices used as against fire and accidents."
A steam-shovel company, 2,200 employee^, "We would suggest in
computing weekly benefits that in a factory working only six days
per week the fractional part of weeks be computed on a six-day basis
instead of seven days as at present in Ohio. Second, in total or
partial disability cases where a fixed number of weeks' pay are
allowed to the injured, would suggest that this should be changed so
that at any time the injured is able to resume work the pay from the
State fund, which is paid bi-weekly, should stop." A decorating com-
pany, frescoing and dealing in wall papers, 12 employees, "The work-
man should pay about one-seventh, as in Germany, as at present he
is so well paid and small firms are not making much money on the
whole."
RHODE ISLAND.
In Rhode Island, the general opinion expressed is that, the law
having been in operation only one year, experience under it is too
limited to give any reliable data as a basis for changes. A cotton
manufacturing company, 625 employees, "It is working very satis-
factory with us." A company manufacturing cotton yarns and
weaving duck fabrics, dress and curtain goods, "The Rhode Island
laws need to be made more explicit at many points." A label works,
SUGGESTIONS BY EMPLOYEES. 193
20 employees, "The compensation is too small where the injury is not
the fault of the injured employee, and in certain cases no payment
should be made — a boy doing errands who jumps on a wagon and is
hurt, for instance."
WASHINGTON.
From the State of Washington the replies of numerous employers
evince a lively interest in the act. Many report a disinclination to sug-
gest changes in the law, saying it is satisfactory to them as it stands.
Others think that there has not been sufficient tune for a test of the
various features. Demand for a lower rate occurs often enough to
arrest attention. The law prescribed pay of the physician and the
manner of his selection are frequently mentioned. The classification
of industries is pronounced objectionable, especially in out-door
occupations. Under this heading, a vehicle manufacturer employing
12 persons, not having had an accident in 15 years serious enough to
call for the services of a physician, is classified with large shipbuflding
plants ; a meat packer, with 300 hands, notes that neither livery stables
nor retail meat houses are classified; a firm of wool pullers, with 22
employees, says: "Too many industries are classed in groups;" an
employed paper hanger objects to being classed with construction iron-
workers; logging camps, lumber mills, and shingle mills, and team
owners hauling poles are in one class, with which grouping a " Cedar
poles and piling" firm, with 110 employees, finds fault. Following
are typical letters, covering the various suggestions offered: Coal and
coke company, 150 employees, t i In fixing the percentage on coal mines,
the kind of mines should be taken into consideration and rates fixed
accordingly." Electric shop, 4 employees, "The law practically
catches only the men remaining in Ibusiness, but overlooks in the
building trades numbers of contractors and large amounts which
would naturally be due from them, and if collected would reduce the
rate considerably." Lumber company, 200 employees, "We think
the law a good one, and is to be commended, with the exception of
minor accidents, to which we think too much attention is being paid.
We find among our men that the slightest bruise will cause them to
lay off and take advantage of the law in making a claim where none
should be allowed. Before the law went into effect no attention by
the men was paid to such small bruises or splinter pricks and cuts.
With this eliminated we think the law an excellent one." Manu-
facturers of electrical apparatus, 30 employees, "Men are paid for the
most trivial injuries, rrior to the passage of the law in this State
this company, which has been in operation for over 10 years, had
never carried liability insurance, had never paid, or been requested to
pay, one cent for damages. We are now compelled to report to the
State commissioners the slightest possible accident, and after making
such a report if the man cares to lay off he may do so, and if he can
get a physician to take care of him he is able to draw his weekly
benefits from the State fund without question." Lumber company,
36 employees, "We believe that the compensation law as enforced in
this State is just and fair toward both employer and employee. If
a man meets with an accident he knows just what he is going to get;
there is no haggling or compromising, and the employer's sleep at night
is not disturbed worrying about possible damage suits." Sailmaker
30003— S. Doc. 419, 63-2 13
194 WOBKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
and rigger, 4 employees, "It is the best ever; a working man should
receive 75 per cent instead of 60 per cent of his wages. " Engraving
company, 6 employees, "I believe the law should provide for physi-
cian and hospital expenses. As it is now, the injured employee
often gets less than his hospital expenses and is not in any way com-
pensated for his injuries." Manufacturer blower and exhaust sys-
tems for planing mills, etc., 12 employees, "The compensation laws,
which are to be enacted in the various States, should conform as
closely as possible to a certain standard." Wholesale and retail
grocers, 70 employees, "Its extension to cover every kind of employ-
ment. We believe the plan to be founded on equity, and from our
observations faithfully administered. We favor legislation to
further widen its scope." Plastering and cement contractor, average
about 25 employees, "One change I would like to see made; the
physician as it is now gets all the money. I had one man hurt last
year; the man got $66 from the State, the doctor's bill was $60. So
you see that looks bad, as the doctor gets all the money, and another
is that the injured has to wait four to five weeks before he can get
any money, and he needs the money most right away. A bad
feature as it is now is to locate all contractors and employers of labor.
There ought to be some way that all employers be compelled to
notify the State that he is employing men, so he would pay his share
of the premiums to the State; as it is now, so many pay nothing.
All employers, in my opinion, should take out a permit, as we do in
our city departments if we want to build anything; by doing that all
will pay their part to the fund, and not, as it is now, just the con-
tractors that are well enough known and are easily found. I think
this State is going to make some such law; if all the employees get
protection under the law, all employers should be compelled to pay
their share in the fund." Coal mining company, 270 employees,
"Where employees do not pay so much per month for medical atten-
tion, industrial insurance commission snould protect physician for
amount of his fees from amount of award." Town of Eatonville,
number of employees ranges from 5 to 100, "The town of Eatonville
has had but one employee injured since the industrial insurance law
went into effect. The case was peculiar for the reason that a work-
man suffered the loss of one eye through the concussion resulting
from a heavy dynamite charge, and it was impossible to get evidence
that the accident actually resulted from such concussion. The
workman's claim was rejected." The findings of the Industrial
Insurance Commission is final in each case of claim, except as of their
own accord they may reopen an investigation after having rendered
an adverse decision on a claim. This law covers hazardous employ-
ment and has nothing to do with such labor as is not considered
'hazardous' or 'extrahazardous."; Flour millers, 100 employees,
"Some system to hasten payment, or at least part payment, to assist
the injured to meet pressing bills." Electric company, 5 employees,
"If you are going to have State insurance, have it so an employer is
protected, in place of only partially. Reasons: One of my employees
covered by State insurance let a ladder fall and struck a woman
passing, and she sued for damages which State insurance did not
cover. What is the good of insurance if an employer is not pro-
tected against the acts of his men he is paying State insurance on ?<"
SUGGESTIONS BY EMPLOYEES. 195
General contractors, 15 employees, " Cover all classes of employees."
Publishers and printers, 4 to 5 employees besides manager, "Our
Washington law does not pay sufficient to compensate for injuries
or lost time, thus requiring workmen to carry insurance of their own,
but leaving the poorer classes of workmen (who rarely carry insur-
ance) to be compensated only 20 to 30 per cent of lost wages." Shoe
manufacturing company, 80 to 100 employees, "More careful investi-
gation of accidents. We believe the State could be more conserva-
tive in making awards. There are too many opportunities for impos-
ing on the State. If the State used the same care in making awards
that liability companies do, we believe the law would be O. K."
Paints and wall-paper company, 14 employees, "Why is it that any
one doing work, government work, has to take out insurance for their
men ? Why does the compensation act cover this work ? " Laundry,
70 employees, "We think there should be a first-aid clause, with
provisions for doctor and hospital expenses." Printing and binding
company, 30 employees, "By careful inquiry by Master Printers'
Association we learn of but two accidents in the State during last
five years ; am therefore convinced that rate paid is larger than is
justified." Bridge contractor, 12 employees, ^Tremiums might be
reduced somewhat. The law here has Ibeen in effect about two years,
and there has, during that time, accumulated about $1,000,000 more
than claims have amounted to." Logging company, 125 to 150
employees, ' i There is a move to compel employers to pay for first aid,
but we are opposed to this. If this was done some doctor would get
the appointment, and in case of accident we would have to notify
and send for doctor so appointed, and would make a case to be
adjusted. Under our present arrangement we get a man on our
train quickly and connect with main line, frequently holding the main-
line train to get cripple to hospital 10 miles away. We employ the
best of help (hospital) , and if man conies out all right, nothing further
is done." Lumber mills, shingle mills, and logging camps are all
assessed under one class (class 10). "We believe the logging camps
have a much higher percentage of fatal and other accidents than the
lumber mills, and should be in another class." Logging company,
175 employees, "In the logging business the pay roll is divided into
two classes, consisting of the actual logging operation and the railway
work. On the former the rate is 2^ per cent and on the latter 5.
They compel us to put all men working on railroad into the 5 per cent
class, which is unjust, as there is no risk in connection with pick and
shovel men and wheelbarrow men. We think that 5 per cent should
be charged on railway train men only." Sandstone quarrying, 160
employees, "If a man gets hurt and goes to the hospital the time is
too long to wait from one to two months before receiving compensa-
tion. It works a hardship in some cases, particularly those Having
families depending upon them. As a whole, we consider the State
compensation act a good law for all concerned." Brewing and
malting company, 400 employees, "The State of Washington law in
general has seemed the best and fairest, to both employer and em-
ployee, in force in Europe or America that has come under the
observation of the writer after going over many of them. It is
humanitarian and has resulted in establishing a more satisfactory
feeling between capital and labor than ever existed before." Manu-
facturers of paper, 225 employees, "First, no compensation for
196 WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
employees who return to work within the week. Second, no com-
pensation for any injury the first week. Third, as all industries
ought to bear the burden of their risks, and such burden being
charged into cost of operation, the consumer in the final analysis will
be the one who will nave to pay the compensation; therefore, the
workmen's compensation, if possible, should be uniform and apply
to every State in the Union. Fourth, the present law of the State of
Washington has not yet been passed upon by the Supreme Court
as being constitutional, owing to the act being 'compulsory'; so
employers may be still liable to an action for damages, the stutute of
limitations being expressly inoperative during the period this law is
in effect, if declared unconstitutional. The amount paid by the
workmen's compensation act would be deducted from any damages
allowed by the court. Fifth, although much in excess in cost com-
parative with the old method, we are in favor of the workmen's com-
pensation act, providing the administration is justly handled and
uniform laws enacted in all States of the Union." Brewing company,
100 employees, " On the whole, we think the Washington law is a great
benefit to both employees and employers." Portland cement com-
pany, 140 employees, "The first-aid feature where hospital arrange-
ment as we have it is not provided. We are well pleased with the
law and its workings, as are also our employees."
WISCONSIN.
In the Wisconsin reports, about one-half the replies have no
suggestions. In the opinion of several large employers, as well as
^Q - . •*•- -mi ^ m •r-iilJi..//.*
small c
and
toxication o „ ^ „
of liability in such cases is deemed inequitable. The following give
various views: Manufacturers of grain drills and feeders, 100 em-
ployees, "Law too new to determine effect. If our present law is
enforced fairly by the commission, believe it will be beneficial and
will accept it as soon as present policy expires." Lumber company,
200 employees, "Injured man should be required to file notice of
demand for compensation within 20 days after accident. Slight
injuries are sometimes overlooked and develop seriously later."
Manufacturers of jute container box board, 140 employees, "Kulings
are too complicated and varied. Average laboring man not able to
familiarize himself with the conditions." Real estate and insurance,
4 employees, "Changes should eliminate office force from its opera-
tion. To our knowledge, no injury to an office employee was traced
to any responsibility or neglect of his employer." Lumber and
cooperage, 40 employees in Wisconsin, "As the law is intended for
benefit of employees and employers, a change which would result
more entirely in benefit to them, instead of in large part to insurance
companies, would be desirable." Company logging forest products,
500 employees, "Chiefly one, i. e., that the employee contribute
toward the cost of the compensation paid under the compensation
act, as is done under the workmen's compensation law in force in
Germany." Manufacturers of electric cranes, etc., 550 employees,
"Nationalize, so that all competing concerns are on same basis."
Manufacturers and dealers hi lumber and timber, 300 employees,
SUGGESTIONS BY EMPLOYEES. 197
" As employers we do not favor the law, as it requires closer attention,
is more expensive, as the clerical work is much more, because of
numerous reports, and we do not think it furnishes any better
attention or service from the workmen." Paper manufacturers, 120
employees, "In our opinion, premiums should be paid to State
treasurer and the Commonwealth be the insurance company. We are
not Socialists either.'7 Brewing company, "To have employee pay
part of the premium. Tendency is that employee will loaf when re-
ceiving compensation and especially if he carries benefit insurance
in some insurance company or society. Under our compensation law,
employee may commit fraud unless same be physically examined
before beginning employment; for instance, rupture." Brewing
company, 30 employees, "The law in this State as originally passed
met my approval, but the danger lies in succeeding legislatures
tinkering with it.7; Manufacturers of lumber, 300 employees, "We
believe that every employee should receive the same consideration
but, as our law reads, only those who work for companies employing
more than four men receive compensation." Lumper, box factory,
and planing mill, 50 employees, "The employers in this State should
have some protection from the employee. As it is, there is none except
to go to Wisconsin commission and" for petty claims we had better
suffer." Company manufacturing lime and quarrying building
stone, 25 employees, "We think the State ought to carry the in-
surance, which can be done at at least one-half the rate charged
by insurance companies at the present time." Plumbing and heat-
ing contractors, 30 employees, "Make the acceptance compulsory."
Box factory, planing mill, etc., 11 employees, "Would suggest tnat
it be made so that liability insurance would not cost three times
what it was before the compensation law." Brewing company, 250
employees, "We suggest that the time in which employees commence
to draw compensation be extended from eight days to two weeks, and
50 per cent of wages allowed after that time, with the maximum wage
of $10 per week and the minimum $6; and that the feature of in-
toxication, instead of reducing the computation of wage on a basis
of from 65 to 50 per cent, be entirely abrogated." Lumber com-
pany, 400 to 1,500 employees, "Intoxication should be a defense;
petty injuries should draw less compensation."
NO. 7A. STATISTICS.
CALIFORNIA.
MEMORANDUM ON THE CALIFORNIA INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT EXPERIENCE FOR THE
FIRST 10 MONTHS OF 1913.
[Prepared for the National Civic Federation by the Industrial Accident Board of the
State of California.]
To the compensation provisions of chapter 399, laws of 1911, com-
monly known as the Roseberry liability and compensation law, 1,109
employers of labor in the State of California have filed acceptance since
the act went into effect September 1, 1911. The act applies to all
employers who may elect to its provisions, and includes employers
of agricultural laborers and domestic servants.
All employers of labor within the State of California, and all extra
State employers of labor, the employees of whom operate within the
State of California, are eligible to elect to the compensation provi-
sions of the act.
The total number of employers eligible to such election is estimated
at 45,954, and the number of workers employed is estimated at
809,056.
No method of carrying the risk is provided in the act, the employer
being left free to carry the risk at his own option. There is no State
insurance, nor State mutual, nor -employers' mutuals.
By chapter 53, extra session laws of 1911, every employer of labor
within the State of California, except those engaged in farming,
dairying, agricultural or horticultural pursuits, in poultry raising, or
domestic service, must report to the industrial accident ooard every
personal injury suffered by its or his employees, arising out of or in
the course of the employment, and resulting in death or in disability,
extending over a period of a week or more.
The number of workers covered by this law is estimated at 498,917,
there being no census of the workers yet taken.
To November 1, 1913, from January 1, 1913, there were reported
to the Industrial Accident Board 9,519 accidents over which said
board had official cognizance, distributed according to disability as
follows :
Temporary disability 8, 476
Permanent disability 624
Deaths 419
Total 9,519
Besides 10,196 accidents in which the disability was less than one
week, or which occurred in the exempted employments.
In 7,489 of the 9,519 accidents the histories are complete. In
2,030 cases the histories are incomplete, the disability not having
ended or the settlement not having been made.
198
STATISTICS. 199
The 7,489 accidents are distributed according to disability as
follows :
Temporary disability 6, 684
Permanent disability 467
Deaths 338
Total 7,489
The provisions of chapter 53, Extra Session Laws of 1911, provide
that supplemental reports on accidents are due to the industrial-
accident board upon termination of disability, or if disability ex-
tends over a period of 60 days on the sixtieth day, and again upon
termination of disability.
It is also provided that all claims settled or pavments made to or
on behalf of injured workers must be reported when such payments
are made.
These two provisions so operate that it is impossible to take a
cross-sectional view of the completed history of all accidents, inas-
much as at any particular moment a large number of accident
histories are incomplete.
No cases are tabulated until the histories thereof are completed,
in order to safeguard the possible inclusion of accidents to which
official cognizance of the industrial-accident board does not extend.
It is reasonably certain that the averages of all incomplete accidents
will follow the averages of the completed accidents, with the ex-
ception that the periods of disability will average greater and the
settlements proportionately larger.
The number of fatal cases is 377. In 125 of these cases no de-
Eendents were left. In 212 cases dependents were left, pensions
eing given in 19 cases, the other settlements consisting of lump-sum
payments.
The provision that settlements are to be made in death cases only
to dependents operated in the 212 cases, there being 290 total de-
pendents, and 24 partial dependents, or 314 dependents in all.
Appended (Table No. 1) is a table showing the distribution of
death dependents, according to relationship of the dependents.
There are seven cases of permanent total incapacity.
The distribution of permanent injuries, according to organic or
functional loss, constituting a permanent incapacitation is given in
appended Table No. 2.
The average of permanent disability approximates 30 days in
those cases where the employee ultimately returns to work, whether
or not he engaged in the same occupational pursuit after as before
the injury.
Ir those cases where he does not return, or in which injury is of
sufficient extent to disable his working in his former pursuit, or any
allied occupation, a percentage disability rating of 43.3 per cent is
incurred.
The average for temporary injury with the distribution of tem-
porary injuries by the weekly period of disability, together with the
actual number of days lost by those temporarily incapacitated, is
given in appended Table No. 11.
The total amount of compensation paid is ascertainable from the
Tables Nos. 3, 4, and 5. These are as follows:
Table No. 3, showing the distribution of temporary injuries accord-
ing to the indemnity paid to those employees under compensation,
200 WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
and to those not under compensation, according as to whether the
indemnity was paid by the employer where no liability or compen-
sation insurance was carried by the employer, where such liability
or compensation insurance was carried, and by the casualty com-
pany covering the liability or compensation risk of the employers.
Table No. 4, showing the distribution of permanent injuries accord-
ing to the indemnity paid to those employees under compensation,
and to those not under compensation, according as to whether the
indemnity was paid by the employer where no liability or compensa-
tion insurance was carried by the employer, where such liability or
compensation insurance was carried, and by the casualty company
covering the liability or compensation risk of the employers.
Table No. 5, showing the distribution of death disabilities, accord-
ing to the indemnity paid on behalf of those employees under com-
pensation, and on behalf of those not under compensation, according
as to whether the indemnity was paid by the employer where no
liability or compensation insurance was carried by the employer,
where such liability or compensation insurance was carried, and by
the casualty company covering the liability or compensation risk of
the employers.
The average weekly wage for all employees is $18.62; their average
age is 33.96 years.
Workers to the number of 2,444 received $20 and over per week,
there being 208 workers who received an hourly wage and whose
employment was not continuous. In 73 instances the weekly wage
was not specified.
A complete distribution of the number of workers injured, accord-
ing to their weekly wage, distributed by $10 periods, appears as
Table No. 6.
Appended are the following distributions:
1. Marital condition and nativity, Table No. 7.
2. Cause of injuries, Table No. 8.
3. Nature of temporary injuries, Table No. 9.
4. Industry groups, Table No. 10.
The organization of the statistical department is statistician, investi-
gator, chief clerk, index clerk, stenographer to the statistician, and
stenographer to the department.
The statistician is appointed by and serves at the pleasure of the
board. All other employees of the department come under the Cali-
fornia Civil Service Commission.
The introduction of the Boynton Act will materially affect the
statistical department by increasing the scope of its operations, inas-
much as according to the rules and regulations of the industrial
accident commission, effective January 1, 1914, all accidents causing
disability lasting through the day of injury or involving expenditure
for medical aid will be reported.
The necessity under the present law of investigating a great many
accidents the disabilities of which are less than one week, or which
occur within the exempted industry classes, in order ultimately to
include all accidents to which the official cognizance of the board
extends greatly intensifies the activity of the department, so that
the totals submitted do not adequately represent the work done.
To December 1, 1913, 21,854 accidents were reported, of which
10,521 will ultimately reach tabulation.
STATISTICS.
201
The accident frequency used by the department is the combined
European experience plus the experience of the several insurance
companies in the various States with workmen's collective insurance
policies.
TABLE 1. — Distribution of death dependency according to the relationship of dependents.
Relationship.
Number of
dependents.
Total.
Total.
Partial.
Wife
167
32
77
5
5
1
3
167
52
77
6
8
1
3
Parent
20
Child
Brother
1
3
Sister
Nephew
Others
Total
290
24
314
TABLE 2. — Distribution of permanent injuries according to organic or functional loss.
LOSS OF —
Thumb. — Right, loss of tip, 6; loss at proximal joint, 14. Left, loss of tip, 8; loss
at proximal joint, 10.
Index finger. — Right, loss of tip, 9; loss at middle joint, 3; loss at proximal joint, 14;
Left, loss of tip, 12; loss at middle joint, 2; loss at proximal joint, 15.
Middle finger. — Right, loss of tip, 16; loss at middle joint, 2; loss at proximal joint,
10. Left, loss of tip, 10; loss at proximal joint, 8.
Ring finger. — Right, loss of tip, 1; loss at middle joint, 3; loss at proximal joint, 5.
Left, loss of tip, 9; loss at middle joint, 1; loss at proximal joint, 6.
Little finger. — Right, loss of tip, 6; loss at proximal joint, 12. Left, loss of tip, 7;
loss at middle joint, 1 ; loss at proximal joint, 10.
Ends two fingers. — Right, 4; left, 4.
Parts of fingers.— Right, 2; left, 2.
Two fingers.— Right, 8; left, 6.
Ends of three fingers. —Right, 1; left, 3.
Three fingers.— Right, 10; left, 5.
Four fingers. — Right, 2; left, 5.
Hand at wrist. — Right, 1; left, 5.
Arm at shoulder. — Right, 4.
Leg at hip.— Right, 4; left, 2.
Leg at knee.— Right, 1; left, 2.
One toe. — Any, 18.
Two toes.— Lett, 3.
Three toes.— Right, 1.
Four toes. — Right, 1.
Five toes— Lett, 1.
Testicles, 1.
?. — Organic, right, 15; left, 15.
?. — Functional, right, 4; left, 2.
5 and defective hearing, 1.
*e and impairment of sight of other, 1.
. — One ear, 1.
ieanng
Teeth. — Consequent malnutrition, 1.
OTHERS.
Impairment of function of eye.— Right, 3; left, 4; of both eyes, 2.
Growth on breast, 1.
Strained muscles. — Functional impairment, 2.
Internal, 1.
Spine. — Injury, 2.
Paralysis. — Local, 6.
202
WOKKMEN S COMPENSATION.
Stiffness of hand.— Lett, 3.
Stiffness of one finger. —Right, 3.
Stiffness of knee.— Left, 4.
Loss control of arm. — Left, 1.
Derangements of mind, 2.
Stiffness ofarm.—Leit, 2.
Number ulna nerve. — Right, 1.
Stiff leg— Right, 4.
Defective hearing, 2.
Ruptures, 71.
Intelligence affected, 2.
Floating cartilage. — Knee, 1.
Crushed foot, 1.
Permanent injury to feet, 2.
Nervous shock, 1.
Permanent injury to hip. — Right, 2.
Chronic weakness, 1.
Abscess on body, 1.
Stiffness of two fingers, 1.
Impaired function of hand, 1.
Facial disfigurement, 1.
^4rm permanently weak, 1.
/SK<7fa Zmp, 1.
Stiff toe, 1.
Total permanent injuries, 467.
TABLE No. 3. — Distribution of temporary injuries by number of cases in which indemnity
was paid and by amount of indemnity received by the injured workmen.
Number.
Amount of
indemnity.
772
$37,775 78
60
134
84
4,087,36
132
4, 268. 57
1,253
81,904.27
2 188
690
55,348.94
1,503
180
12, 558. 80
Cases under compensation, when no liability insurance was carried, settlements
by the employers:
Cases settled
Cases not settled
Cases under compensation when liability insurance was carried, settlements by
the insurance companies:
Cases settled
Cases not settled
Cases under compensation when liability insurance was carried, settlements by
the employers:
Cases settled ,
Cases not under compensation when no liability insurance was carried, settle-
ments by the employers:
Cases settled
Cases not settled ,
Cases not under compensation when liability insurance was carried, settlements
by the insurance companies:
Cases settled
Cases not settled
Cases not under compensation when liability insurance was carried, settlements
by the employers:
Cases settled
RECAPITULATION.
Under
compensa-
tion.
Not under
compensa-
tion.
Number of cases in which no settlement was made
60
3,511
Number of cases in which settlement was made
990
2,123
Total indemnity
$46. 131. 71
$149,812.01
Average indemnity per settlement
$46. 60
$70. 56
$43. 93
$26.59
STATISTICS.
203
TABLE No. 4. — Distribution of permanent injuries by number of cases in which indem-
nity was paid and by amount of indemnity received by the injured workers.
iber.
Amount of
indemnity.
»57
9
1$6,006.64
3
5
207.00
1
»145
81
78.64
'40,986.87
50
117
9,185.80
15
271. 75
Cases under compensation where no liability insurance was carried, settlements
by the employers:
Cases settled
Cases not settled
Cases under compensation when liability insurance was carried, settlements by
the insurance companies:
Cases settled
Cases not settled
Cases under compensation when liability insurance was carried, settlements by
the employers:
Cases settled
Cases not under compensation where no liability insurance was carried, settle-
ments by the employers:
Cases settled
Cases not settled
Cases not under compensation where liability insurance was carried, settlements
by the insurance companies:
Cases settled
Cases not settled
Cases not under compensation where liability insurance was carried, settlements
by the employers:
Cases settled
1 ( A^) =S4S0' care but not indemnity included.
L) ( AT) ~$480' care but not indemnity Deluded.
(2) (Air) ~$720) care but not indemnltv included.
(3)< ^ Ai?^ =$600, care but not indemnity included.
RECAPITULATION.
unaer com-
pensation.
compen-
sation.
Number of cases in which no settlement was made
14
198
Number of cases in which settlement was made
61
210
Pensions
1
3
Total indemnity (pension not included)
$6,292.28
$50, 444. 42
Average indemnity per settlement
$104. 87
$243. 69
Average indemnity per case
$186. 20
$129. 35
Not under
TABLE No. 5. — Distribution of death disabilities by number of cases in which indemnity
was paid and by amount of indemnity received by the dependents of the injured workers.
Number.
Amount of
settlement.
Cases under compensation where no liability insurance was carried, settlements
by the employers:
Cases settled
1 $11,564.68
Cases not settled
10
Cases under compensation where liability insurance was carried, settlements by
the insurance companies:
Cases not settled.
13
Cases not under compensation where no liability insurance was carried, settle-
ments by the employers:
Cases settled
45
65 463 91
Cases not settled
149
Cases not under compensation where liability insurance was carried, settlements
by the insurance companies:
Cases settled
19
33,307.52
Cases not settled
95
Cases not under compensation where liability insurance was carried, settlements
by the employers:
Cases settled
1
3,000 00
'(I) $900 (A H)
(2) $1,430 (A H)
(3) $1,215 (A 5?)
204
WORKMEN S COMPENSATION.
TABLE No. 5. — Distribution of death disabilities by number of cases in which indemnity
was paid and by amount of indemnity received by the dependents of the injured workers —
Continued.
RECAPITULATION.
Under com-
pensation.
Not under
compensa-
tion.
Number of cases in which no settlement was made
23
243
Number of cases in which settlement was made . . . .
7
65
Pensions
3
Total indemnity (peTisinns not innHifle'1). ,,
$11,564.68
$101,771.43
Average indemnity per settlement ..
$2,891.17
$1,565.71
Average indeninity pe-r f-as6
$428.32
$330.43
TABLE No. 6. — Distribution of the number of workers according to their weekly wage,
classified in $10 periods.
From $0 to $9.99.. ... 431
From $10 to $19.99 4, 333
From $20 to $29.99 1, 962
From $30 to $39.99 407
From $40 to $49.99 57
From $50 to $59.99 10
From $60 to $69.99 5
From $70 to $74.99
$75 and over 1
Hourly 208
Not specified
Total 1 7,489
TABLE No. 7. — Distribution of all injuries distributed by marital condition and nativity
of injured workers.
Married.
Single.
Un-
known.
Not speci-
fied.
Total.
Americans
2,149
2,057
135
28
4,369
Foreigners 1
1,221
1,402
105
20
2,748
Unknown
116
155
46
4
321
Not specified
27
15
0
9
51
Total
3,513
3,629
286
61
7,489
TABLE No. 8. — Distribution by character of disability of the causes of accidents.
Cause.
Tempo-
rary dis-
ability.
Perma-
nent dis-
ability.
Death.
Total.
Machinery and its parts:
1. Motors and engines
147
21
2
170
2. Shafting and conveyors. . »
36
1
3
40
3. Gearing
37
14
1
52
4. Belts, lines, and pulleys
164
26
7
197
5 Drills punches and dies
65
30
95
6. Emery-wheels
31
1
32
26
22
1
49
8. Lathers and shapers
24
6
1
31
9. Planers, veneerers, and sanders
21
12
33
10 Presses
23
4
27
11. Feed rolls .
54
7
2
63
12. Saws
84
35
4
123
13. Set screws
17
17
14. Cogs
19
19
15. Allother
77
3
1
81
16 Without mechanical po'ver
55
55
Hoisting apparatus:
1. Elevation
64
6
5
75
2. Other hoisting apparatus . . .
96
6
2
104
STATISTICS. 205
TABLE No. 8. — Distribution by character of disability of the causes of accidents — Contd.
Cause.
Tempo-
rary dis-
ability.
Perma-
nent dis-
ability.
Death.
Total.
115
155
187
277
Dangerous substances:
1. Steam escapes
2. Electric currents
3. Explosions
4. Hot, corrosive, and inflammable substances
5. Slivers, thorns, and protruding nails
Falling, rolling, and flying objects:
1. Flying fragments 156 25
2. Cave-ins and rolling stones 218
3. Rolling and falling objects 510 37
4. Moving and handling objects in shops 325 32
5. Loading and unloading 829 38
6. Falling piles and stacks 34
7. Collapse of buildings 19
Tools 457 I 30
Teaming and hauling:
1. Runaways 23 0
2. Animals 93 1
Collisions, etc.:
1. Collisions, derailments, etc 210
2. Run over by train or vehicle 74 3
3. Hit by train or vehicle 91 4
4. Coupling cars or trucks 45
5. Jammed between objects Ill 7
Falls:
1. From trains or vehicles 162 5
2. From trains or vehicles due to sudden start or stop 54 0
3. From trains or vehicles while alighting or boarding 157 1
4. From collapse of scaffolds and staging 125 2
5. From elevations 295 11
6. Fromladders 100 0
7. From animals 11 0
8. From slipping 363 16
9. From tripping 29 2
10. From tool slipping 45 6
11. From clothes catching 8 0
12. Into openings, trenches, and pits 71 0
13. Into elevator shafts 14 0
14. On stairways 26 0
All other causes:
1. Various 151 8
2. Specific cause unknown 24 5
Total... 6,684 467
143
209
191
278
181
237
585
358
876
35
25
488
28
256
89
115
57
121
172
56
162
128
335
101
11
385
31
51
8
79
18
26
176
35
7,489
TABLE No. 9. — Distribution of temporary injuries by nature of injury.
Injuries.
Number.
Bruises, contusions, and abrasions
Cuts and lacerations
Dislocations, sprains, and strains
Fractures
Burns and scalds
Mashes and crushes with no permanent injury.
Infections
Injuries to eyes
Puncture wounds
Internal
Ruptures, slight
Specific injury unknown
All others
Total.
2,191
1,168
1,040
982
409
250
207
166
142
58
4
10
57
6,684
206
WORKMEN S COMPENSATION.
TABLE No. 10.
Indemnity.
Under law.
Not under law.
Total.
Tem-
porary
disa-
bility.
Perma-
nent
disa-
bility.
Death.
Total.
Tem-
porary
disa-
bility.
Perma-
nent
disa-
bility.
Death.
Total.
Brick, tile, and pottery
15
99
5
48
15
94
247
34
311
16
98
4
4
2
3
7
41
4
3
1
5
2
3
2
12
18
1
17
4
3
16
109
8
53
18
108
276
37
329
20
104
5
5
2
5
7
44
4
4
23
639
43
3
25
1
66
24
40
24
8
14
1
9
16
27
63
14
3
48
3
11
2
41
23
21
5
2
21
2
15
5
6
60
21
12
7
27
730
6
397
23
749
333
423
292
56
378
22
120
74
182
1,917
327
149
130
43
839
14
450
41
857
609
460
621
76
482
27
125
76
187
1,924
371
153
134
Construction
5
1
2
2
11
2
1
Explosives
Foodstuffs
361
20
642
286
362
263
46
343
19
96
53
149
1.794
292
137
109
Laundries . ...
Lumber
Mines
Metals and machinery
Oil
Paper and printing .
Power and light
3
1
Textiles
Quarries
1
Other manufacturing
Mercantile
2
Railroads
Other transportation
2
1
Public corporations
All others
1
14
Total
1,050
74
30
1,154
5,634
393
308
6,335
7,489
TABLE No. 11. — Distribution of temporary injuries by periods of disability .
Weekly
period.
Accidents.
Days.
Per cent
of cases.
1- 2
2,409
26,401
36.04
2- 3
1,269
22, 626
18.98
3- 4
734
19,647
10.98
4-5
500
15,834
7.48
5- 6
323
12,536
4.83
6- 7
282
11,066
4.22
7- 8
163
8,635
2.44
8- 9
126
8,660
1.89
9-10
78
5,235
1.17
10-11
57
4,236
.85
11-12
54
4,373
.81
12-13
44
3,871
.66
13-14
29
2,752
.43
14-15
15
1,522
.22
15-16
7
767
.10
16-17
12
1,393
.18
17-18
7
849
.10
18-19
8
910
.12
19-20
7
1,015
.10
20-21
6
871
.09
21-22
5
755
.07
22-23
3
479
.04
23-24
3
496
.04
24-25
25-26
1
176
.01
26-27
1
188
.01
27-28
2
386
.03
28-29
1
197
.01
29-30
30-31
1
205
.01
31-32
32-33
33-34
34-35
35-36
3
698
.04
36-37
37-38
38-39
39-40
40-41
41 42
42-43
43-44
1
306
.01
533
7.97
Total.
6,684
157,085
Average disability, 23.50 days.
STATISTICS. 207
MASSACHUSETTS.
The following table shows the number of requests for arbitration
and their disposition:
Total number of requests for arbitration from July 1, 1912, to Nov. 30, 1913,
inclusive 584
Total number of cases heard by committees of arbitration 349
Total number of cases in which arbitration was requested which were settled
without a formal hearing 182
Total number of cases pending 53
Total number of cases heard by the board on review under section 7, Part III.. 56
Total number of cases heard by the board on review under section 12, Part III. 6
Total number of cases appealed to the supreme judicial court 26
About 3,000 claims, regarding which there was some dispute, were adjusted by the
mediation of members of the board by conference with employees and insurers.
During the first 12 months of the act there were reported to the
industrial accident board 89,694 nonfatal accidents.
Four hundred and seventy-four persons engaged in occupations in
Massachusetts were killed as a result of injuries arising out of and in
the course of their employment.
Seventy-one more fatalities were reported to the industrial accident
board, which were found on investigation not to arise out of or in
the course of employment, or subject to the workings of the compensa-
tion act.
Of the 474 fatally, injured persons to whom the act was applicable,
290 were under compensation and 184 were not.
In 112 of the cases no dependents were left. In the remaining
362 cases there were 873 dependents, of whom 770 were wholly
dependent and 103 were partially dependent upon the supporting
member of the family.
One hundred and sixty-four of the persons fatally injured were
single, 30 were widowers, 2 were divorced, and 278 were married.
These figures show that in 60 per cent of the fatal cases there were
left widows in a state of dependency.
Of the total number of nonfatal accidents reported (89,694) 68,586,
or 76 per cent, were for injuries which incapacitated the employee for
two weeks or less; and of these, 36,779, or 41 per cent of the total
accidents reported, were for injuries which incapacitated the employee
but for one day.
Ten thousand five hundred and sixty-eight, or 12 per cent, were for
injuries which incapacitated the employee for from two to four weeks.
Six thousand six hundred and thirty-eight, or 7 per cent, were for
injuries which incapacitated the employee from four to eight weeks.
Two thousand three hundred and fifty-five, or 3 per cent, were for
injuries which incapacitated the employee from 8 to 13 weeks.
One thousand two hundred and seventy-five, or 1 per cent, were for
injuries which incapacitated the employee from 13 weeks to 6 months.
Two hundred and seventy-two, or tnree-tenths of 1 per cent, were
for injuries which incapacitated the employee for over six months.
The greatest number of accidents, as represented, occurred among
those between the ages of 21 to 29 years; the next highest number
fell in the group between 30 and 39 years.
208
The
WORKMEN S COMPENSATION.
of persons fatally injured are shown in the following table:
Ages of persons fatally injured.
Aee.
Number.
Under 16...
4
16-20
18
60 and over
50-59
55
66
40-49
83
30-39
113
21-29
135
474
As in nonfatal cases, the number of fatalities was heaviest among
those between 21 and 39 years. The number of persons in these two
groups comprised over 50 per cent of the total.
In 112 of the cases no dependents were left; the balance of 362
fatalities resulted in 873 cases of dependency either in whole or in
part.
The amount of compensation paid and due under the act, from
July 1, 1912, to June 30, 1913, amounted to $1,677,380.82. Fifty-one
per cent was compensation for nonfatal injuries; 24 per cent went to
the payment of medical and hospital expenses; and 23 per cent was
paid for fatal injuries.
The following table shows the wages received by those who were
fatally injured:
Wages of those fatally injured.
Wages
Number
of cases.
$8 and under
$15 and under
$20 and under
Over $20
27
288
102
57
In connection with these figures, as well as with those covering
nonfatal injuries, it is of interest to note that accidents occur more
frequently among persons who receive a wage approaching $15 per
weelk, and also among those who receive between $15 and $20 per
week.
Of the 474 fatal fases, four of the injured persons were paid on a
piece-rate basis.
Causes of accide U — Nonfatal accidents. — Twenty-eight thousand
nine hundred and sixty-three nonfatal accidents, or 32 per cent of
the total number, were caused by hand labor; 11,000, or 12 per cent,
were caused by machinery peculiar to special industries; 8,139, or
9 per cent, were the result of falls of various kinds; 4,305, or 4 per
cent, were eye injuries; 99, or one-tenth of 1 per cent, were occupa-
tional diseases.
STATISTICS.
209
The following table shows the causes of fatal accidents arranged in
the order of their magnitude :
Fatal accidents.
Railroad eq uipment 119
Falls 66
Vehicles 43
Hand labor 37
Elevators 33
Electricity 25
Street railways 20
Boiler explosions and burns 15
Excavating -14
Cranes 11
Miscellaneous — unclassified 11
Asphyxiation, drowning, etc 10
Animals, insects, etc 9
Shafting, set screws, etc 9
Falling material from overhead 8
Machinery peculiar to special industries 7
Belting 6
Infection from trivial cuts, burns, etc 5
Saws - - 4
Explosions (not boiler) 4
Hoists 4
Illness.... 3
Presses 2
Gears -. 2
Emery wheels 2
Occupational diseases 2
Glass 1
"Wood molders 1
Assault and fighting 1
Total 474
As shown above, the heaviest causes of fatal accidents were due to
railroad equipment, falls, vehicles, hand labor, elevators, electricity,
and street railways.
By grouping these figures into the three classifications made for non-
fatal accidents — hand labor, machinery, and miscellaneous causes —
the following results are found :
Seventy-three per cent of the fatalities were due to miscellaneous
causes. Of these causes about 25 per cent were contributed by rail-
road equipment, and 13 per cent by falls.
Nineteen per cent of the fatalities were caused by machinery.
Eight per cent were caused by hand labor.
Number of accidents per 1,000 employees for 25 selected branches of industry.
Industry.
Number.
Automobile factories
Electrical supplies
Foundries and metal working..
Slaughter and packing houses . .
Box makers (wood)
Car and railroad shops
Rubber factories
Printing and publishing
Bakeries
Pianos and organs
Furniture
Paper and pulp mills
Tanneries
213
202
182
157
139
133
119
105
Industry.
Cotton mills
Jewelry factories
Box makers (paper)
Woolen and worsted mills
Candy
Carpet mills
Knitting mills
shoes ''.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'.\'".'.
Marble and stone cutters
Dyeing and finishing textiles
Makers of blank books, envelopes, tags,
etc
Clothing makers
Number.
General average for group, 91 accidents per 1,000 employees.
30003— S. Doc. 419, 63-2-^14
210 WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
Incidence of fatal accidents, by industries, for year ending July 1, 1913.
Industry.
Number.
Industry.
Number.
Road, street, and bridge transportation.
Building trades
Trade
Miscellaneous industries
Textiles
Iron and steel
Water transportation
Food and kindred products
Lumber and its manufactures
Leather and its finished products
Domestic and personal service
Beverages and liquors
183
71
42
31
25
24
21
10
9
Agriculture and forestry
Forestry
Paper
Chemical products
Metal and metal products
Extraction of minerals
Clay, glass, and stone products.
Express companies
Post, telegraph, and telephone .
Professional service
Printing and bookbinding
Total number of additional injuries for which specific payments are to be made, and the
estimated amount due in cases covered by insurance.
•""Insured" means covered by compensation act.]
Insured.
Not in-
sured.
Total.
Amount
due.
Bothfeetlost 1 1
Botheyeslost 1 i $700
Oneeyelost 43 4 47 15,050
One hand lost 27 8 36 9,450
Onefootlost 14 8 22 4,900
Two or more fingers lost 128 5 133 22,400
Two or more toes lost 17 4 21 2, 975
Onefingerlost 587 85 672 49,308
Onetoelost 31 3 34 2,604
Total SIS 118 966 107,387
j !
MICHIGAN.
Employers operating under act 10, 760
Employees covered by provisions of act 475, 408
Total number of accidents reported 21, 172
Males injured 20, 822
Females injured '. 350
ACCIDENTS CLASSIFIED.
Fatalities 495 i Less than eight weeks 11,415
Amputations 2,112 I Eight weeks or more 7,150
EMPLOYERS CLASSIFIED AS TO METHOD OF CARRYING RISK.
Liability insurance 9, 562 Arbitrations 266
State insurance 368 Appealed to board 61
Own risk 617 Appealed to supreme court 10
Mutual insurance 213
FIRST SIX MONTHS' EXPERIENCE UNDER MICHIGAN ACT.
Ratio of accidents to total number of employees under act 0. 0258
Ratio of fatal accidents 0005
Ratio of amputations 0030
Ratio of major injuries 0095
Ratio of minor injuries 0127
Percentage of fatal accidents 0215
Percentage of amputations 1178
Percentage of major injuries 3700
Percentage of minor injuries 4904
STATISTICS.
211
EXPERIENCE OF SIX EMPLOYERS, ONE FROM EACH INDUSTRY— FIRST SIX MONTHS
OF OPERATION UNDER MICHIGAN LAW.
Nature of business.
Number of
employees.
Number of acci-
dents.
Fatal.
Non-
Percentage.
Non-
fatal.
Fatal.
Compen-
sation
paid.
Medical
and hos-
pital at-
tention.
Mining
Chemical....
Automobiles.
Foundry
Machinery . . ,
Rubber
2.710
1,800
6,713
2,500
3,072
2,500
254
578
1,725
474
145
576
0.0937
.32
.256
.19
.046
.23
0.00037
.0011
.0002
$2, 154. 06
2,301.01
9,448.63
0)
1,015.75
$1,626.00
2,730.00
742. 74
1,187.15
447.05
1,299.09
Total 19,295 5 3,752 15,588.55 8,032.03
1 Total amount of compensation paid not given.
Average percentage nonfatal accidents to number of employees 0. 18927
Average percentage of fatal accidents to number of employees 0. 00038
Average cost of compensation per employee $0. 96
Average cost of medical and hospital attention per employee SO. 42
Average cost of compensation per total number of accidents $4.12
Average cost of medical attention total number of accidents $2. 11
Average cost per man injured of medical and hospital attention and compensation $6. 23
Total cost of compensation and medical and hospital attention of 3,757 accidents to 6 em-
ployers $23,620.58
OHIO.
[As of Nov. 15, 1913.]
Number of risks 2, 711
Number of workmen covered 171, 113
Number of accidents reported 14, 139
Number entitled to compensation 5, 115
Number of fatal cases 48
Number leaving dependents:
Cases passed on 34
Disallowed 3
Dismissed and dependency in the remaining 29 cases 2
Number of cases of permanent total disability 2
Number losing hands 2
Number losing arms 3
Number losing feet 0
Number losing legs 0
Average length of disability (cases only where compensation award) ... 8£ weeks.
Number disabled more than one week and less than two weeks 1, 128
Number of appeals to court 1
Total amount of compensation paid (includes medical, hospital, funeral,
etc., also deferred awards and unspttled claims^ $444,837.23
Total paid in death cases $76, 338. 97
Total paid for lost hands $2,790.00
Total paid for lost arms $5, 367. 06
Total paid for lost feet 0
Total paid for lost legs 0
Average amount paid weekly $8. 94
Total number whose average wage exceeded $18 963
Average length of time between accident and commencement of weekly payments,
29 days.
(Application for award not to be made until two weeks after the occurrence of the
injury.)
212
WORKMEN S COMPENSATION.
WASHINGTON.
[Year from Oct. 1, 1912, to Oct. 1, 1913.]
Number eligible? All extra hazardous employments.
Number of accidents (nonfatal)? 12,380 excluding fatal and trivial cases.
Number entitled to compensation? 12,380.
Number of fatal cases? Requiring pension, 173; requiring no pension, 156.
Number of cases of permanent total incapacity? 13.
Number losing hands? 12.
Number losing arms? 13.
Number losing feet? 8.
Number losing legs? 10 plus 10 amputated thighs.
Average length of disability? 275 days excluding Sundays.
Total amount of compensation paid? $1,377,271.09 (all awards).
Total paid in death cases? $453, 302.68.
Total paid for lost hands? $13,937.50.
Total paid for lost arms? $20,025.
Total paid for lost faet? $10,225.
Total paid for lost legs? $30,000.
Average amount paid weekly? $1.35 per day for temporary total disability.
(Average daily wage of injured persons, $3.05.)
Temporary total disabilities classified according to weeks duration, from Oct. 1, 1912, to
Oct. 1, 1918.
Duration of disability
Number of Per cent
Not more than 1 week 1,681
From 1 to 2 weeks 3, 157
From 2 to 3 weeks 2,113
From 3 to 4 weeks 1,365
From 4 to 5 weeks 1,139
From 5 to 6 weeks 658
From 6 to 7 weeks 439
From 7 to 8 weeks 281
From 8 to 9 weeks 330
From 9 to 10 weeks 160
From 10 to 11 weeks
From 11 to 12 weeks 100
From 12 to 13 weeks _ 131
From 13 to 14 weeks .,
From 14 to 15 weeks 65
From 15 to 16 weeks
From 16 to 17 weeks
From 17 to 18 weeks 93
From 1 8 to 19 weeks
From 19 to 20 weeks 36
From 20 to 21 weeks
From 21 to 22 weeks
From 22 to 23 weeks 23
From 23 to 24 weeks
From 24 to 25 weeks 10
From 25 to 26 weeks
More than 26 weeks 172
Total.. 12,380
13.6
25.5
17.1
11.0
9.2
5.3
3.5
2.3
2.7
1.3
1.1
.8
1.1
.4
.5
.3
.2
.8
.1
.3
.2
.6
.2
.1
.1
.3
1.4
100.0
NO 8. ITINERARY OF COMMISSION AND NAMES OF PUBLIC OFFI-
CIALS, EMPLOYERS, AND LABOR REPRESENTATIVES.
Beginning in the last week of July, the inquiry was conducted
without intermission until toward the end of December.
Messrs. Phillips, Mitchell, and Lord, representing the commission,
held its first series of conferences in Boston. On August 4 a day
was spent with the Massachusetts industrial accident board, the
full State commission being present, viz, James B. Carroll, chairman;
Robert E. Grandfield, secretary; and Dudley M. Holman, David T.
Dickinson, Edward F. McSweeney, and Joseph A. Parks. In Bos-
ton the commission members also conferred with Mathias J. Nesdale,
business agent of the Amalgamated Association of Street Railway
Employees, and with a committee delegated by the Boston Central
Labor Union for the purpose, consisting of Henry Sterling, chair-
man of the State Labor Federation's legislative committee; Arthur
M. Huddell, president of the Hoisting and Portable Engineers'
Union of Boston; Louis R. Sullivan, of the Hotel and Restaurant
Employees' Organization, and A. C. Langlois, of the Metal Polishers
and Buffers' Union.
On August 11 the next conference was held at the office of the
Michigan industrial accident board at Lansing. Besides Messrs.
Phillips, Mitchell, and Lord, of the commission, the participants in
the proceedings were John E. Kinnane, chairman, and Ora E. Reaves,
member of the board; John T. Winship, commissioner of insurance;
and Robert K. Orr, assistant to the commissioner and manager of
the accident fund; and J. M. Eaton, director of the accident preven-
tion and relief organization of the Cadillac Motor Car Co., while
among the representatives of labor were Claude O. Taylor, president,
and Homer R. Waterman, secretary, of the State Federation of Labor;
and Joseph Smith, Michigan district president of the Miners' Union;
also E. C. Shields, attorney; and James Cunningham, labor com-
missioner.
The next morning, August 12, the three members of the com-
mission met in Detroit, J. M. Eaton, of the Cadillac Motor Car Co.,
and Leslie B. Robertson, general counsel for the Ford Motor Co., who
explained in detail the operation of the compensation act in respect
to the two plants which they represented. In the afternoon a con-
ference was held at the headquarters of the Federation of Labor, the
following trade-union officials being present: Harry Colwell, business
agent, and Guy Smith, national officer, of the Carpenters and Joiners'
Union; J. E. McGlory and Samuel Tobin, Structural Iron Workers;
Edward Francis, of the Building Trades Council; Henry Kummer-
feld, president of the Detroit Federation of Labor; Stanley Ander-
son, president, and William Stitson, of the Detroit local union of the
Street Railway Employees; Garrett F. Burns, of the Amalgamated
Association of Street Railway Employees; Frank X. Martel, of the
Typographical Union; John Gannon, of the Brewers' Association;
213
214 WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
Messrs. Sauter, of the Beer Bottlers, and H. L. Hunt, of the Electrical
Linemen, and several others whose names could not be obtained.
In the evening during a meeting at which insurance questions in-
volved in compensation were discussed the following persons were
present: F. A. Brown, of the Ocean Accident Guarantee Corpora-
tion; Frank Eaman, of Bowen, Douglass, Eaman & Barbour; C. M.
Young, William M. Brown, and Floyd N. Dull, special agents of the
Travelers Insurance Co. ; Fred L. Witmire, attorney of the Employers'
Liability Assurance Corporation; T. Cotter, of the London Guarantee
& Accident Co.; Ora E. Reaves, member of the industrial accident
board, of Lansing; F. S. Deneen, engineer the Chalmers Motor Co.;
George J. Lieber, agency supervisor, Olen K. Underwood, investi-
gator, and Eugene C. Marthwet, of the Aetna Life Insurance Co.;
and Austin J. Spaulding, attorney for the Fidelity & Deposit Co. of
Maryland.
The following morning, August 13, the insurance features of the
Michigan act were further stated at conferences held at the offices
of the Travelers Insurance Co. and the Aetna Life Insurance Co.,
those participating being Messrs. Hall, Fred L. Van Deveer, attorney
Travelers Insurance Co.; George J. Lieber, agency supervisor, and
Olen K. Underwood, investigator, Aetna Life Insurance Co.;
Eugene C. Marthwet and J. Giebel, insurance representatives; and
Ora E. Reaves, of the Michigan Industrial Accident Board.
On August 14 at the Builders and Trades' Exchange in Detroit
the operation of the law as regards contractors and subcontractors
was discussed with R. K. Logan, president the State Builders' As-
sociation of Michigan. An interview was also had with Elmer H.
Dearth, general manager of the Michigan Workmen's Mutual In-
surance Co. of Detroit.
In the afternoon at the Fellowcraft Club a conference was had
with A. A. Templeton, of the Morgan & Wright Co. ; H. W. Hoyt, of
the Great Lakes Engineering Works; Robert McFate, of the Vinton
Co.; R. K. Logan, president the State Builders' Association, of
Saginaw, Mich.; John J. Whirl, secretary of the Employers' Asso-
ciation of Detroit; and Frank P. Johnston, vice president the Detroit
Screw Works.
On August 15, in Columbus, Ohio, a meeting was had with Wallace
D. Yaple, chairman of the Industrial Commission of Ohio and com-
missioner of the State board of arbitration; and William C. Archer,
secretary of the industrial commission. In the afternoon, at his
office in Columbus, Opha Moore, secretary of the Ohio Manufacturers'
Association, presented his views as to the operation of the Ohio law.
On August 16, in Cleveland, a conference was held with S. W.
Tener, manager accident and pension department of the American
Steel & Wire Co. ; Edward J. Hobday, secretary Cleveland Industrial
Association; and Munson A. Havens, secretary of the Cleveland
Chamber of Commerce.
On August 18 meetings followed in Cleveland with P. Hassenpflue,
president of the Cleveland Federation of Labor; C. A. Roberts, sec-
retary of the Employers' Association; William B. Stewart, attorney;
Frank Ansell, assistant treasurer, H. P. Bingham, of the Bolt & Nut
Co. ; and Charles V. Lavan, of the State board of awards.
ITTNEBAKY OF COMMISSION. 215
The following day Messrs. Phillips, Lord, and Mitchell had inter-
views in Chicago with Glen W. Traer, president of the Coal Operators'
Liability Insurance Co.; J. C. Adderley, representing the Millers'
Mutual and Printers' Mutual Casualty insurance Cos.; F. J. Dam-
mann, attorney for the Maryland Casualty Co.; John Fitzpatrick,
president the Chicago Federation of Labor; and R. W. Campbell,
chairman, and R. J. Young, secretary, of the safety committee, the
Illinois Steel Co.
On August 21 the methods of its work were studied at the State
capitol, Madison, Wis., with the industrial commission, C. H. Crown-
hart, cnairman. August 22 conferences were had at Milwaukee with
Frank J. Weber, corresponding secretary of the Federation of Trades
Organizations and general organizer of tne State Federation of Labor;
John W. Mapel, of the Foster & Vogel Leather Co. ; F. P. Blumenf eld,
president, William G. Bruce, secretary, and Robert L. Frost, as-
sistant secretary, of the Merchants & Manufacturers' Association;
W. J. Fairbairn, secretary of the Metal Trades Employers' Association;
A. T. Van Scoy, of the International Harvester Co.; Eltinge Elmore,
retired; E. J. Kearney, secretary-treasurer of the Kearney & Trecker
Co. ; and S. M. Cantrovitz, president- treasurer of the Western Raw-
hide & BeHing Co.
On October 2 the commission interviewed Gen. Lewis T. Bryant,
commissioner of labor, and William E. Stubbs, secretary of the New
Jersey employers' liability commission, at Trenton, in regard to the
operation of the compensation act of that State.
Beginning November 18, Messrs. Phillips and Mitchell had confer-
ences ha Seattle, Wash., with Charles R. Case, president of the Wash-
ington Federation of Labor at the tune the compensation law was
enacted hi that State; F. Dabney, of the Puget Sound Traction,
Light & Power Co., of Seattle; C. W. Miles, manager the West
Coast Lumber Manufacturers' Association, of Tacoma ; and Hamilton
Higday, former State industrial insurance commissioner. Edward
F. McSweeney, member of the Massachusetts industrial accident
board, who was authorized by the governor to accompany the com-
mission on its western trip, was also present.
On the following day, at the New Richmond Hotel, Seattle, a
trade-union view of compensation in California was given by Paul
Scharrenberg, secretary-treasurer of the California State Federation
of Labor, appointed to meet the commission by the California dele-
gation attending the convention of the American Federation of Labor,
then in session at Seattle.
On November 20, in Olympia, at the office of the industrial insur-
ance commission of Washington, a conference was had with the
following members: John H. W"a^aceJ F. W. Hinsdale, chief auditor;
Dr. J. W. Mo well, medical adviser; and R. Adah", statistician.
On November 26, Messrs. Phillips and Mitchell conferred at the
Palace Hotel, San Francisco, with Messrs. Fisher, president the Metal
Trades Employers' Association; and McGregor, of the Union Iron
Works; Mr. Fowler; and Mr. Havens, attorney for the Metal Trades
Employers' Association. In the afternoon the commission met A. J.
Pillsbury, the chairman, Will J. French, and Harris Weinstock, of
the industrial accident board of California.
216 WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
Questionnaires, letters, and descriptive circulars were sent to
employers in manufacturing and all types of contracting, street rail-
roads, and other public utilities, such as gas and electric light, and to
proprietors of mercantile or department stores. The lists were so
selected that they covered all trades and large as well as small em-
ployers, that every phase of the matter might be represented.
Among the employers' associations other than those elsewhere
mentioned which assisted in the distribution of literature or furnished
lists of their members are: The National Association of Box Manu-
facturers, Henry B. Maxwell, manager, Chicago; the Stove Founders'
National Defense Association, Thomas J. Hogan, secretary, Chicago;
the United States Brewers' Association; the Shoe and Leather Asso-
ciation, Thomas F. Anderson, secretary, Boston; the Builders and
Traders' Exchange, Charles A. Bowen, secretary, Detroit; and local
branches of such organizations as the Electrical Contractors' Asso-
ciation, C. E. Greenwood, assistant secretary, Boston; the National
Metal Trades Association, Paul Blatchford, secretary, Chicago; the
Master House Painters; and chambers of commerce. The employer
members of the National Civic Federation also were covered.
In some States conditions required special lists to bring out facts
covering the peculiarities of the laws.
In California there were secured lists of the 1,100 employers who
had accepted the elective act, that their views might be obtained,
and also lists of employers who rejected the act, for the purpose of
learning the reasons for such action.
In Illinois there was used a list of employers rejecting the new
compensation law, effective July 1, 1913, of which there were 500.
There were also circularized in that State a large percentage of the
5,000 employers who refused to accept the preceding law, effective
May 1, 1912, as well as employers operating under the present act,
ana the full membership of the Illinois Manufacturers' Association,
John M. Glenn, secretary, Chicago; and the Tri-City Manufacturers'
Association, H. A. Jansen, secretary, Moline.
In Kansas it was surprising to find so large a number of important
concerns (500) which had elected not to accept the act. The official
list of such employers was used in addition to covering the trades in
general, as usual in all States.
In Massachusetts the special lists included not only 1,000 of the
employers insured either in the Massachusetts Employees' Insurance
Association or in each of the casualty and liability indemnity com-
panies, but also the official list from the Massachusetts board of em-
ployers uninsured and not under the act. There were 17,000 employ-
ers in Massachusetts who accepted the act.
In Michigan there was used a list of the employers carrying their
own risk; the full list of employers in the Workmen's Compensation
Mutual Insurance Co.; the Michigan Manufacturers' Association,
H. C. Hertz, secretary; and the Employers' Association of Detroit,
John I. Whirl, secretary; and an official fist, furnished by the State
board, of employers who had adopted the act, and another of em-
ployers who nad rejected it. The total who accepted the act in
ichigan was 10,760.
ITINERARY OF COMMISSION. 217
In addition to general trade lists, especial assistance was given or
lists were furnished as follows:
In New Jersey the Foundrymen's Association of Newark, Arthur
E. Barlow, secretary, gave help in distributing literature.
In New Hampshire a special list was furnished by the labor de-
partment, comprising the 21 employers who had accepted the act.
In Nevada the 100 companies which rejected the law, according
to official records, were addressed in particular.
In Rhode Island the large and small industries covered were
especially cotton and jewelry manufacturers, as they are the biggest
interests in that State.
In Wisconsin all members of the Employers' Mutual Liability
Insurance Co., according to the list furnished by the State board,
and those who were on the list of nonelections, amounting to 500 on
October 6, were addressed, as well as those carrying their own risk,
and the members of the Merchants aod Manufacturers' Association,
William G. Bruce, secretary, Milwaukee.
In Ohio a list was furnished by the industrial commission, giving
representative employers who had adopted the State plan of insur-
ance. The total number who had come under the act amounted to
2,100 to 2,700. The Industrial Association of Cleveland, Edward J.
Hobday, secretary, gave special service in distributing literature.
In Washington 3,000 of the 6,000 given in the official report of
the Washington State Industrial Insurance Commission for the 12
months ending September 30, 1912, were addressed.
Others who were consulted and interviewed were : George H. Webb,
commissioner of the bureau of industrial statistics, Providence, R. I.;
Lee H. Ott, chairman public service commission, Charleston, W. Va.;
P. J. Watrous, secretary of the Wisconsin Industrial Insurance Com-
mission; James M. Carter, secretary of the Builders' Association Ex-
change, Buffalo, N. Y.; Walter S. Bucklin, secretary Massachusetts
Employees' Insurance Association, Boston, Mass.; P. Tecumseh Sher-
man, attorney, New York City; H. B. Bradbury, attorney, New
York City; and John B. McPherson, secretary of the Civic Federation
of New England, Boston, Mass.
STATE INSURANCE DEPARTMENTS.
Illinois, Rufus M. Potts, superintendent Springfield.
Kansas, Ike S. Lewis, superintendent Topeka.
Massachusetts, Frank H. Hardison, commissioner Boston.
Michigan, Robert K. Orr, manager accident fund Lansing.
Minnesota, J. A. 0. Preus, commissioner St. Paul.
New Jersey, Thomas K. Johnston, deputy commissioner Trenton.
New York, William T. Emmet, superintendent New York City.
Texas, W. W. Collier, commissioner Austin.
Washington, F. W. Hinsdale, chief auditor Olympia.
Wisconsin, Herman L. Ekern, commissioner Madison.
Canada:
William Fitzgerald, superintendent .Ottawa.
Alphonse Gagnon, secretary department of public works
and labor Quebec.
218 WOKKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
LIST OF EMPLOYERS.
There are listed below names of a portion of the firms which lent
their assistance through correspondence, sufficient in number and
location to indicate the extent of the inquiry according to the pe-
culiarities of the laws in the respective States. Interstate corpora-
tions are given under the States in which they have had the greatest
experience:
CALIFORNIA.
Alameda County Home Builders (Inc.) Berkeley.
Albion Lumber Co., F. H. Manss Albion.
American Marble & Mosaic Co ! San Francisco.
Anchor Laundry Co Los Angeles.
H. T. Anderson Visalia.
Bickford & Wilson Los Angeles.
Bishop Creek Milling Co., Paul E. Lodge, local agent Bishop.
R. C. Blackwell Fresno.
Samuel Bloom & Sons Co San Francisco.
Bluxome & Co., J. D. Bluxome San Francisco.
California Boiler Works San Francisco.
California Corrugated Culvert Co West Berkeley.
California Dental Supply Co., Roswell P. Annin, secretary .. Los Angeles.
F. E. Carter Los Angeles.
Contra Costa Construction Co., George M. Mott, vice presi-
dent Berkeley.
Walter H. Creighton Oakland.
Cyclops Iron Works . . " San Francisco.
N orris K. Davis San Francisco.
F. Duhring Sonoma.
Eagle Laundry Co San Francisco.
Emeryville Planing Mill Co Emeryville.
The Emporium San Francisco.
Enterprise Foundry Co San Francisco.
Enterprise Laundry Co., 0. W. Boeselse, manager Santa Barbara.
Garden City Implement & Vehicle Co San Jose.
C. M. Gifford & Son San Diego.
Hale Bros. (Inc.) San Francisco.
Hercules Powder Co., H. H. Eastman San Francisco.
F. L. Hieatt Brick & Tile Co San Diego.
C. J. Hillard Co San Francisco.
Holton Interurban Railway Co Redlands.
E. Clemens Horst Co San Francisco.
Hotpoint Electric Heating Co Ontario.
Hunt Bros. Co Hayward.
Judson Manufacturing Co San Francisco.
Judson Paint & Grinding Co West Berkeley.
Limoneira Co Santa Paula.
Los Angeles Gas & Electric Corporation Los Angeles.
Los Angeles Laundry Co., K. E. Morgan, president Los Angeles.
Peter Lynch Napa Junction.
H. C. M'acCaulay Foundry Co. (Inc.) Berkeley.
Marine Electric Co San Francisco.
Mercantile Realty Co San Francisco.
Metal Weld Co San Francisco.
Metten & Gebhardt San Francisco.
Model Laundry Long Beach.
Moore & Burlingame San Francisco.
Casa N erdugo ( Inc. ) Los Angel es.
New Method Laundry Co Los Angeles.
New Pennsylvania Petroleum Co Santa Maria.
Noble Electric Steel Co., E. S. Morgan, secretary San Francisco.
Northern California Power Co., Consolidated San Francisco.
North Star Mines Co Grass Valley.
The Norton Tanning Co., C. Jamison San Francisco.
Old Homestead Bakery San Francisco.
EMPLOYEES WHO ASSISTED.
Pacific Rolling Mill Co San Francisco.
Pacific Sanitary Manufacturing Co San Francisco.
Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Co San Francisco.
Payne's Bolt Works San Francisco.
Pelton Water Wheel Co., Edward L. Brayton, president. . .San Francisco.
S. Petersen & Son San Francisco.
Quincy Western Railway Co San Francisco.
Red Star Laundry Co., J. B. Leaman San Jose.
San Diego Consolidated Brewing Co San Diego.
Santa Paula Garage-Machine Co Santa Paula.
Santa Paula Hardware Co Santa Paula.
Scoville Iron Works Oakland.
H. K. Small & Sons Riverside.
Smith-Booth-Usher Co., H. P. Usher, treasurer Los Angeles.
C. A. Smith Lumber Co Oakland.
Southern California Edison Co., R. H. Ballard, secretary and
assistant general manager Los Angeles.
South San Francisco Belt Railway. San Francisco.
Southwestern Home Telephone Co Redlands.
Standard Oil Co San Francisco.
Steiger & Kerr Stove & Foundry Co San Francisco.
Sterling Iron Works Stockton.
Swan The Painter (Inc.), J. S. Swan, president San Francisco.
Adolph Teichert & Son Sacramento.
Joseph S. Thompson San Francisco.
Thompson Bros San Francisco.
Threlkeld, Blohm & Co San Francisco.
Thurston & Co., E. C. Kruse, jr San Francisco.
Tieslau Bros Berkeley.
Tightner Mines Co Grass Valley.
Toulouse & Delorieux Co. (Inc.) San Francisco.
Troy Laundry Co Pasadena.
Union Iron Works Co., J. A. McGregor, president San Francisco.
Walker & Hener San Francisco.
Weinstock, Lubin & Co., I. Loerch Sacramento.
ILLINOIS.
Acme Steel Goods Co., James B. MacMurray, president Chicago.
Albion Shale Brick Co Albion.
Allith-Prouty Co Danville.
Andrews Wire & Iron Works, Charles Andrews, jr., secre-
tary-treasurer Rockford.
Avery Co., G. L. Avery, secretary Peoria.
The Barr Clay Co Streator.
G. Bossenga Co Chicago.
Central Union Telephone & Telegraph Co Chicago.
Chicago & North Western Railway Co Chicago.
Chicago Automatic Machine Co Chicago.
Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co., H. E. Byram,
vice president .". .Chicago.
Chicago Hardware Foundry Co North Chicago.
Chicago Mill & Lumber Co Chicago.
J. L. Clark Manufacturing Co Rockiord.
John Coleman Mount Carmel.
The Combination Fountain Co Decatur.
Commonwealth Edison Co., John F. Gilchrist, assistant to
president Chicago.
Commonwealth Steel Co Granite City.
Continental Bridge Co Peotone.
J. C. Deacon Co Chicago.
Decatur Brewing Co., Frank Shlandeman. president and
treasurer Decatur.
Decatur Bridge Co Decatur.
Deere & Co., L. A. Paradise, superintendent Moline.
Desaulniers & Co Moline.
Dobson Manufacturing Co Rockford.
220 WOKKMEN'S COMPENSATION'.
Elgin National Watch Co., Charles H. Hubbard, president- .Chicago.
Felt & Tarrant Manufacturing Co Chicago.
Fiirst & Fanning Chicago.
William Ganschow Co Chicago.
Cesaire Gareau Chicago.
General Roofing Manufacturing Co East St. Louis.
Goetz Co Chicago.
Green Bros. Box & Lumber Co Rockford.
Hart Grain Weigher Co Peoria.
R. Herschel Manufacturing Co., C. E. Edes, auditor Peoria.
Hibbard, Spencer, Bartlett & Co., F. L. Macomber, credit
manager Chicago.
P. Hohenadel, jr., Canning Co Rochelle.
Illinois Central Railroad Co., Blewett Lee, general solicitor. .Chicago.
Illinois Glass Co., Charles G. Caskey, manager insurance
department Alton.
Illinois Knitting Co., P. C. Withers, president Mount Vernon.
Illinois Packing Box Co., John J. Haggerty Chicago.
Illinois Steel Co Chicago.
Imperial Brass Manufacturing Co Chicago.
Independent Harvester Co Piano.
J. B. Inderrieden Co Chicago.
International Harvester Co., L. A. Rauney, secretary Chicago.
The International Register Co Chicago.
Interstate Light & Power Co., H. Gordon, manager insurance
department Galena.
The John Crerar Library, Clement W. Andrews, librarian Chicago.
W. A. Jones Foundry& Machine Co Chicago.
Keystone Steel & Wire Co., B. L. Sommer, secretary-
treasurer Peoria.
Kimble Electric Co Chicago.
George H. Kirk Chicago.
Mathias Klein & Sons Chicago.
Klipfel Manufacturing Co., John Schulz, secretary-treasurer. Chicago.
Kroeschell Bros. Ice Machinery Co Chicago.
Lammert & Mann Chicago.
Leader Iron Works Decatur.
Leisy Brewing Co Peoria.
Max Levy & Co Chicago.
E. W. Lewis Roofing Co Rock Island.
Link-Belt Co Chicago.
A. Lucas & Sons Peoria.
Ludowici-Celadon Co Chicago.
McDonald Machine Co Chicago.
McNeill, Lauff & McNeill Chicago.
H . Z . Mallen & Co Chicago .
Mears-Slayton Lumber Co Chicago.
Miehle Printing Press & Manufacturing Co., L. T. Auster-
mell, secretary-treasurer Chicago.
Missouri Malleable Iron Co East St. Louis.
Moline Automobile Co East Moline.
Moline Furniture Works Moline.
Moline Scale Co East Moline.
Moline Tool Co Moline.
Monarch Box Co .Chicago.
Mount Vernon Car Manufacturing Co., W. C. Arthurs, presi-
dent Mount Vernon.
H. Mueller Manufacturing Co Decatur.
Mutual Wheel Co., George McMaster, secretary-treasurer. . .Moline.
National Cooperage & Wooden ware Co Peoria.
National Manufacturing Co Sterling.
William R. Perrin & Co Sycamore.
C. E. Peterson Co Chicago.
Pyott Foundry Co Chicago.
Raike, Friedman & Co Chicago.
Ravmond Bros. Impact Pulverizer Co., C. M. Lauritzen,
vice president and manager Chicago.
EMPLOYEES WHO ASSISTED. 221
Eugene 0. Reed Co. (Inc.) Chicago.
Evans L. Reed Mfg. Co. Sterling.
Regensteiner Colortype Co Chicago.
Renaud Roofing Co Chicago.
The Rice & Hutchins Chicago Co., W. G. Colvin, treasurer
and manager Chicago.
O. W. Richardson & Co Chicago.
Rockford City Traction Co Rockford.
Rockford & Interurban Co Rockford.
Rockf oid Mitten & Hosiery Co Rockford .
Rock Island Brewing Co Rock Island.
Rock Island Stove Co .• Rock Island.
The Root & Van Dervoort Engineering Co East Moline.
Rosenbaum Bros., Wm. C. Renstrom, secretary Chicago.
Rosen wald & Weil Chicago.
Roth Bros. & Co Chicago.
Rueckheim Bros. & Eckstein Chicago.
Russell, Burdsall & Ward Bolt & Nut Co., A. S. Bradford,
manager Rock Falls.
The Peter Schoenhofen Brewing Co., R. Ostenrieder, secre-
tary-treasurer Chicago.
Sandwich Mfg. Co., C. A. Phelps Sandwich.
The Scarborough Co Chicago.
Schiller Piano Co Oregon.
A. J. Schindler Co Chicago.
Albert Schwill & Co Chicago.
Sears, Roebuck & Co Chicago.
D. M. Sechler Implement & Carriage Co Moline.
The Sefton Mfg. Co Chicago.
Selz, Schwab & Co Chicago.
The Seng Co Chicago.
Sewell Clapp — Envelopes Chicago.
The Henry O. Shepard Co Chicago.
F. Siegel & Bros Chicago.
Simpson, Bevans & Co Chicago.
Skandia Furniture Co Rockford.
Smith & Phillips Mfg. Co Chicago.
F. P. Smith Wire & Iron Works, F. P. Smith Chicago.
A. G. SpaldingMfg. Co Chicago.
Staver Carriage Co Chicago.
Streator Aqueduct Co Streator.
Stromberg, Allen & Co Chicago.
Strube Machine Works Chicago.
Sullivan Machinery Co., Frederick K. Copeland, president. .Chicago.
Robert Tarrant Chicago.
The Temple Pump Co Chicago.
Tyler & Hippach Chicago.
Union Furniture Co., P. A. Peterson, president Rockford.
Union Wire Mattress Co Chicago.
United Coal Mining Co Chicago.
United States Equipment Co Chicago.
United States Slicing Machine Co Chicago.
United States Steel Corporation, Raynal C. Boiling, gen-
eral solicitor Chicago.
Universal Portland Cement Co Chicago.
Vaughan & Bushnell Mfg. Co Chicago.
Weems Laundry Co Quincy.
Weis- Peterson Box Co Cairo.
Wells, Fargo & Co., Richard Burr, assistant comptroller Chicago.
Western Brewery Co Belleville.
Western Felt Works Chicago.
The Western Glass Co Streator.
Whiting Foundry Equipment Co Harvey.
Wilder & Co Chicago.
Willis & Sons Co Moline.
F. Cortez Wilson & Co., George Landis Wilson, president. .Chicago.
Wilson Bros Chicago.
222 WOKKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
Charles T. Wilt Chicago.
J. H. Winterbotham & Sons Chicago.
Torrifl Wold & Co Chicago.
Wolf, Sayer & Heller, G. Reichardt, assistant treasurer Chicago.
Woplner Distilling Co Peoria.
Wright Carriage Body Co. >. Moline.
The Rudolph Wurlitzer Co., E. H. Uhl, manager Chicago.
The Zangerle & Peterson Co Chicago.
William Zoeller Co Chicago .
KANSAS.
The Atchison Revolving Door Co Independence.
Besse Cockerill Coal Co Pittsburg.
The Carlisle-Pennell Lumber Co., William Carlisle, presi-
dent and general manager Atchison.
The Cement Stone & Supply Co Wichita.
Central Sash & Door Co Topeka.
Chicago Lumber & Coal Co Concordia.
Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway, A. E. Sweet,
general manager Topeka.
Clay County Creamery Co Clay Center.
A. B. Clippinger & Sons Kansas City.
The Coffeyville Vitrified Brick & Tile Co Coffeyville.
The Coleman Lamp Co Wichita.
The Frank Colladay Hardware Co Hutchinson.
Continental Cereal Co Leavenworth.
C. L. Cowan lola.
Crane & Co., F. S. Crane, president Topeka.
The Crescent Produce Co Newton.
G. Dahlin & Sons Kansas City.
The Davis Mercantile Co Topeka.
The Ellsworth-Klaner Construction Co Pittsburg.
The Hauser-Ganison Dry Goods Co Wichita.
The Helmers Manufacturing Co., H. J. Helmers, jr., vice
president Leavenworth.
Henneberry & Co Arkansas City.
T. M. Hobson Paola.
Hodges Bros Edgerton.
Hodgins Kaczynski Kansas City.
E. Horn Co Topeka.
J. M. Hussey Wichita.
The lola Portland Cement Co., J. A. Wheeler, secretary.. .lola.
H. M. Ives & Sons Topeka.
Arthur Jacobson Garden City.
Johnson & Beck Topeka.
State of Kansas. Charles H. Sessions, secretary of state Topeka.
The Kansas Buff Brick & Manufacturing Co Buffville.
The Kansas Chemical Manufacturing Co Hutchinson.
Kansas Oil Refining Co Coffeyville.
C. A. Karlan Furniture Co Topeka. •
The Kaw Package Manufacturing Co Topeka.
The Kaw Paving Co., H. A. Kingsley, vice president and
manager Topeka.
Kaw Valley Icing Co. Topeka.
The Lakin-McKey Manufacturing Co Fort Scott.
The McCleery Lumber Co Topeka.
The George T. McGrath Coal Co., George T. McGrath, presi-
dent Pittsburg.
The S. D. McNaghten Shoe Manufacturing Co Wichita.
The Martin Metal Manufacturing Co Wichita.
The Massey Iron Co Wichita.
The Merritt-Schwier Creamery Co Great Bend.
The Missouri Bridge & Iron Co., E. H. Connor, vice presi-
dent and chief engineer Leavenworth.
National Bedding Co Leavenworth.
The New England Building Co..... , Topeka.
EMPLOYEES WHO ASSISTED. 223
North Star Manufacturing Co Coffeyville.
Peet Bros. Manufacturing Co Kansas City.
Pittsburg Marble Works Pittsburg.
Quality Troy Laundry Wichita.
William Schick Manufacturing Co Topeka.
George A. Shaul Seneca.
F. M. Spencer & Son Topeka.
The Steffen-B retch Ice & Ice Cream Co Wichita.
J. J. Stephenson Coal Co Pittsburg.
W. A. L. Thompson Hardware Co Topeka.
Topeka Cold Storage, Ice & Fuel Co Topeka.
J. H. Turner Wichita.
United Sash & Door Co Wichita.
The Uhrich Planing Mill Co Independence.
The Western Iron & Foundry Co Wichita.
Western Sign Works Co Wichita.
A. J. Wright Wichita.
R. B. Yoakum Leavenworth.
MASSACHUSETTS.
F.B.Alexander West Newton.
American Book Co., Frank A. Fitzpatrick, manager Boston.
American Can Co Boston.
American Express Co., C. W. Robie, assistant general
manager Boston.
American Felt Co., C. I. De Witt, supervisor of plants Boston.
American Printing Co Fall River.
American Soda Fountain Co., Thomas J. Morton, jr., sec-
retary Boston.
Andrews- Wasgatt Co Everett.
Arey Bros Boston.
Attleboro Refining Co Attleboro.
J. W. Aulson & Sons Lynn.
W. L. Bacon New Bedford.
S. R. Bailey & Co. (Inc.) Amesbury.
Bain Bros. Co Boston.
C. H. Bangs Druggists' Fixture Co., C. L. Bangs, treasurer.. Boston.
A. J. Bates Co Webster.
Bay State Street Railway Co., P. F. Sullivan, president... Boston.
Berkshire Cotton Manufacturing Co Adams.
Besse, Osborn & Odell (Inc.) Boston.
Bird & Son East Walpole.
Bliss & Perry Co Newburyport.
J. G. Blount Co Everett.
Boston Chamber of Commere, Daniel D. Morse, treasurer. .Boston.
Boston Coupling Co Boston.
Boston Manufacturing Co., Arthur T. Lyman, president.. .Waltham.
Boston Protective Department, Edward Spaulding, secre-
tary-treasurer Boston.
Boston Rubber Shoe Co., W. C. Piper, general superin-
tendent Maiden.
Boston & Albany Railroad, H. M. Biscoe^ vice president. .Boston.
Boston & Maine Railroad, Charles S. Pierce, assistant gen-
eral solicitor Boston.
Bowler Bros. (Ltd.), William F. Donoghue Worcester.
E. D. Brigham Ashburnham.
Bristol Patent Leather Co Boston.
Brockton Heel Co Campello.
Brown- Wales Co. , William O. Wales, treasurer Boston.
J.F.Buckley Needham.
TheCass& Daley Shoe Co Salem.
H. A. Chester & Co Boston.
Churchill & Alden Co Brockton, Campello.
The Commonwealth Shoe & Leather Co.. Charles H. Jones.. Boston.
Creese & Cook Co Danvers.
Frank A. Cutting. T Boston.
224 WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
Dennison Manufacturing Co Framingham
H. P. Dion New Bedford.
Clarence T. Dooley, C. T. Dooley Cambridge
W. L. Douglas Shoe Co Brockton.
Eagle Shoe Manufacturing Co., Frank T. Johanson Everett.
Charles A. Eaton Co., A. L. McDonald, treasurer Brockton.
Edgeworth Mill Worcester.
Edison Electric Illuminating Co. of Boston, H. W. Moses,
superintendent welfare bureau Boston.
Eldredge&Son Milford.
George H. Ellis Co Boston.
Emerson Shoe Co Rockland.
L. B. Evans' Son Co., A. L. Evans Wakefield.
E. & R. Laundry Co Worcester.
Fall River Automatic Telephone Co Fall River.
Farley, Carney & Co Boston.
Finlanders Stock Co Fitchburg.
Fitchburg Foundry Co, M. J. Perault, proprietor Fitchburg.
Fitchburg Steam Engine Co Fitchburg.
Foster Bros Boston.
George A. Fuller Co .Boston.
Goodell-Pratt Co. , William M. Pratt, president Greenfield.
H. R. Grant Everett.
J. J. Grover's Sons Lynn.
Harding Uniform & Regalia Co., A. Smith, treasurer Boston.
Hickman & Doucette (Inc.) Brockton.
Billiard & Merrill (Inc.) Lynn.
H. A. Holder Boston.
Hood Rubber Co. , F. C. Hood, general manager Watertown.
A. J. Houghton Co Boston.
James Hunter Machine Co North Adams.
International Instrument Co Cambridge.
J. W. &E. F.Johnson Woburn.
Keith Car & Manufacturing Co Sagamore.
Preston B . Keith Shoe Co Brockton.
Keough Electric Co Boston.
Kingman & Swift Brockton.
Allan A. Kingsbery Medfield.
Leonard, Shaw & Dean Middleboro.
Leopold Morse Co Boston.
Edwin C. Lewis (Inc.) Boston.
Frederick Leyland & Co. (Ltd.) Boston.
Lord Electric Co Boston.
D. Lovejoy & Son Lowell.
Ludlow Manufacturing Associates, Malcolm B. Stone,
treasurer Boston.
J. Lunan & Sons Fall River.
W. H. McElwain Co., Clifford P. Warren, assistant secretary .Boston.
J. H. McNamara A.llston.
Maiden & Melrose Gas Light Co Boston
Maple Street Laundry Fall River.
C. S. Marshall Co Brockton.
H. Newton Marshall Co Boston.
Massachusetts Cremation Society Boston.
Metropolitan Coal Co Boston.
Milford Iron Foundry Milford.
Milne & Chalmers (Inc.) Quincy.
Morgan's Pharmacy, A. B. Morgan, Ph. G Maiden.
Morgan Spring Co Worcester.
National Express Co Boston.
Naumkeag Steam Cotton Co., S. Parker Bremer Salem.
John D. Newall Lawrence.
The New England Steamship Co., J. Howland Gardner,
vice president Fall River.
New England Steamship Co., J. Howland Gardner, vice
president New Bedford.
New England Tank & Tower Co Boston.
EMPLOYERS WHO ASSISTED. 225
New England Telephone & Telegraph Co., Walter T. Han-
nigan, secretary Boston.
The New Home Sewing Machine Co Orange.
Norris Noiseless Pedal Action Co., Albert F. Norris, pres-
ident Stoughton.
Norton Co., Aldus C. Higgins, secretary Worcester.
Olmsted Bros Brookline.
Olson & Johnson Revere.
Parkhill Manufacturing Co Fitchburg.
M. H. Parks Co Wateryille.
Penniman & James Cambridge.
Pentucket Laundry Haverhill.
Thomas G. Plant Co Jamaica Plain.
Plymouth Electric Light Co Plymouth.
Pontoosuc Woolen Manufacturing Co., Thomas F. Plunkett.Pittsfield.
Herberts. Potter Boston.
Red Star Line Boston.
Reid & Hughes Co Lawrence.
Richardson Manufacturing Co Worcester.
Robert Robertson Co Beverly.
Shaw Stocking Co., Will H. Howe Lowell.
John Shea Lawrence.
A. W. Sherman North Marshfield.
Simonds Manufacturing Co Fitchburg.
Slipper City Wood Heel Co Haverhill.
L. E. Smith Co Gloucester.
Smith Carr Baking Co Greenfield.
Smith & Dove Manufacturing Co Andover.
Spencer & Co Everett.
Springfield Breweries Co., James A. Gibbons, assistant
treasurer Springfield.
Springfield Webbing Co Springfield.
Standard Tire & Rubber Co .Springfield.
Star Brewing Co Boston.
Stetson Shoe Co., A. C. Heald, treasurer South Weymouth.
B. F. Sturtevant Co Hyde Park, Boston.
Sunshine Laundry Brookline.
Swan Electric Co Boston.
Talbot Mills North Billerica.
H. L. Thomas & Co Swampscott.
Thomson-Crocker Shoe Co Boston.
Tide- Water Broken Stone Co., Eugene R. Atwood, treasurer. Quincy.
United Shoe Machinery Co., M. B. Kaven Boston.
Wachusett Shirt Co Leominster.
A. L. Wales Groveland.
Waltham Watch Co., Harry L. Brown, treasurer Waltham.
Walworth Manufacturing Co., Howard Condey, president. .Boston.
Weir Stove Co Taunton.
Wells Bros. Co., L. M. Lamb, assistant treasurer Greenfield.
The Wire Goods Co., H. B. Douglas, superintendent Worcester.
C. A. Woolley & Co East Boston.
Worcester Pressed Steel Co., Henry H. Knapp Worcester.
Wyman & Gordon Co Worcester.
M. Zimmerman Co Boston.
MICHIGAN.
Acme White Lead & Color Works Detroit.
Ahmeek Mining Co Calumet.
W. O. Albig Department Store Adrian.
Albion Lumber Co Albion.
Albion Malleable Iron Co Albion.
Alert Pipe & Supply Co., Edward J. Bissell, president Bay City.
Allegan Mirror & Frame Co Allegan.
Allouez Mining Co Allouez.
Alpena Hide & Leather Co Alpena.
Amazon Knitting Co Muskegon.
30003— S. Doc. 419, 63-2 15
226 WOBKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
American Blower Co., C. H. Gifford, treasurer Detroit.
American-Boston Mining Co Diorite.
American Brass & Iron Co Detroit.
American Car & Foundry Co., E. D. Alexander, adjuster... Detroit.
American Fork & Hoe Co Jackson.
American National Bank Benton Harbor.
American Seating Co., J. S. Stiles, manager Grand Rapids.
American Wire Fabrics Co Niles.
Anderson Electric Car Co., Elmer H. Dearth, secretary and
general manager Detroit.
Antrim Iron Co Grand Rapids.
Auto Body Co Lansing.
Auto Crank Shaft Co., A. H. Pearson, purchasing agent Detroit.
Bacon Manufacturing Co Pontiac.
Bardeen Paoer Co Otsego.
William Barie Dry Goods Co Saginaw.
Baxter Laundry Co., H. F. Baxter Grand Rapids.
James Bayne Co Grand Rapids.
Estate of P. D. Beckwith (Inc.) Dowagiac.
Belding Bros. & Co Belding.
Belknap Wagon Co Grand Rapids.
Bennett Fuel & Ice Co Grand Rapids.
Benton Harbor Malleable Foundry Co Benton Harbor.
Berry Bros. (Inc.) Detroit.
Bissell Carpet Sweeper Co., F. M. Deane, treasurer Grand Rapids.
Blood Bros. Machine Co Kalamazoo.
Briggs & Cooper Co. (Ltd.) Saginaw.
A. E. Brooks & Co Grand Rapids.
Brooks Manufacturing Co Saginaw.
Brotherton Iron Mining Co Wakefield.
Brown & Seler Co Grand Rapids.
Bryant Paper Co Kalamazoo.
J. H. Bueker's Manufacturing Co Detroit.
Buffalo Iron Mining Co Iron River.
Buhl Malleable Co., S. A. Commons, secretary-treasurer Detroit.
Buick Motor Co., F. A. Allen, assistant secretary-treasurer. Flint.
Burroughs Adding Machine Co., E. P. Wenger, assistant
secretary-treasurer Detroit.
Cadillac Chemical Co Cadillac.
Cadillac Gas Light Co Cadillac.
Cadillac Handle Co Cadillac.
Cadillac Motor Car Co Detroit.
Calumet & Hecla Co Calumet.
C. D. Carpenter Big Rapids.
Cartercar Co Pontiac.
Celfor Tool Co., M. W. Hanlin, general manager Buchanan.
Centennial Copper Mining Co Calumet.
Central Boiler Works, Charles E. McGregor, proprietor Detroit.
Central Paper Co Muskegon.
Challenge Machinery Co Grand Haven.
Challenge Refrigerating Co Grand Haven.
Chalmers Motor Co., W. P. Bradley, insurance department. .Detroit.
Champion Brass Works Coldwater.
E. Chappie & Co Belding.
Cheboygan Flour Mill Co Cheboygan.
Cheboygan Paper Co Cheboygan.
Chevrolet Motor Co Flint.
Citizens Light & Power Co., H. A. Fee, manager Adrian.
City Plumbing Co : St. Joseph.
Cleveland-Cliffs Iron Co., W. H. Moulton, secretary Ishpeming.
Cliff Mining Co Calumet.
Clipper Belt Lacer Co., F. A. Stone, secretary-treasurer Grand Rapids.
Cobbs & Mitchell (Inc.) Cadillac.
Colonial Laundry Co Detroit.
Colonial Manufacturing Co., Herman Miller, manager Zeeland.
Cooney & Smith Saginaw.
Cooper, Wells & Co St. Joseph.
EMPLOYERS WHO ASSISTED. 227
Covel Manufacturing Co Benton Harbor.
Crowley, Milner & Co Detroit.
Cummer-Biggins Co Cadillac.
Dahm & Fanning Co Grand Rapids.
Daisy Manufacturing Co., E. C. Hough, treasurer Plymouth.
Dake Engine Co Grand Haven.
DeFoe Boat & Motor Works Bay City.
Detour Dock Co Detour.
Detroit Brass Works Detroit.
Detroit City Gas Co Detroit.
Detroit Fire & Marine Insurance Co., A. H. McDonel, sec-
retary Detroit.
Detroit Foundry Co Detroit.
Detroit Fuse & Manufacturing* Co Detroit.
Detroit Gear & Machine Co Detroit.
Detroit Insulated Wire Co Detroit.
Detroit Lumber Co Detroit.
Detroit Steel Products Co Detroit.
Detroit Stove Works Detroit.
Detroit Wire Bound Box Co Detroit.
Dr. Denton Sleeping Garment Mills, T. M. Thomas, man-
ager Centerville.
Dodge Bros Detroit.
W . J. Dowsett Co Jackson .
Durant-Dort Carriage Co Flint.
Eastern Michigan Edison-Wash tenaw Division Ann Arbor.
East Jordan Clay Products Co., B. E. Waterman, secretary . East Jordan.
East Jordan Lumber Co East Jordan.
East Jordan Planing Mills Co., B. E. Waterman, vice
president and treasurer East Jordan.
Eberle Brewing Co Jackson.
Edson, Moore & Co Detroit.
Enameled Tank Co., H. E. Roether, secretary Kalamazoo.
Enterprise Foundry Co Detroit.
Escanaba & Lake Superior Railroad Co., C. W. Kates, gen-
eral superintendent Wells.
Eureka Machine Co Lansing.
Fairview Coal & Supply Co Detroit.
Federal Motor Truck Co Detroit.
Henry Feige & Son Saginaw.
Fletcher Paper Co Alpena.
J. B. Ford Co Wyandotte.
Ford Motor Co., L. B. Robertson, general attorney Detroit.
Thomas Forman Co Detroit.
E. B. Foss & Co Bay City.
Foster Stevens & Co. . : Grand Rapids.
Frost Gear & Machine Co Jackson.
Ferguson Manufacturing Co Lansing.
Furniture Mutual Insurance Co., Francis D. Campau,
counsel Grand Rapids.
Gardner, Peterman & Co Saginaw.
General Fire Extinguisher Co., of Michigan Detroit.
General Gas Light Co Kalamazoo.
Gilmore Bros Kalamazoo.
Goodwillie Bros Manistique.
J. C. Goss Co Detroit.
Grande Brick Co Grand Rapids.
Grand Ledge Chair Co Grand Ledge.
Grand Rapids Bookcase & Chair Co Hastings.
Grand Rapids Brewing Co Grand Rapids.
Grand Rapids Brush Co Grand Rapids.
Grand Rapids Hardware Co Grand Rapids.
Grand Rapids Refrigerator Co., C. H. Leonard, president.. Grand Rapids.
Gray Motor Co Detroit.
Great Lakes Engineering Works Detroit.
Great Lakes Laundry Co Sault Ste. Marie.
Greenwood Lumber Co Ontonagon.
228 WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
Gunn Furniture Co Grand Rapids.
Hammond, Standish & Co Detroit.
Hardware Supply Co., C. L. Frost, president Grand Rapids.
Hartford Stave Co Hartford.
Hartwick Lumber Co Detroit.
A. Harvey's Sons Manufacturing Co ., Detroit.
Hastings Table Co Hastings.
J. F. Hasty & Sons Detroit.
Hayes-Ionia Co Ionia.
H. C. & S. W. Railway Co Chassell.
Charles Hebard & Sons (Inc.) Pequaming.
Hemlock River Mining Co Amasa.
Herzog Art Furniture Co Saginaw.
Himes Manufacturing Co '. Lansing.
Holland Furniture Co Holland.
Holland-St. Louis Sugar Co Holland.
Holland Shoe Co Holland.
Holton Co Jackson.
Home Laundry Co Flint.
Houghton Copper Co Dodgeville.
J. L. Hudson Co Detroit.
Hudson Motor Car Co Detroit.
Humphrey Co Kalamazoo.
Hupp Motor Car Co Detroit.
Huron Portland Cement Co Detroit.
Imperial Wheel Co Flint.
Indiana Box Co Muskegon.
Frederick F. Ingram Co Detroit.
Ireland & Matthews Manufacturing Co Detroit.
Isle Royale Copper Co Calumet.
Jackson & Church Co Saginaw.
Jackson Rim Co Jackson.
Jenks & Muir Manufacturing Co Detroit.
Jesiek Boat Co Grand Rapids.
Johnson Furniture Co Grand Rapids.
Johnson Howard Co Kalamazoo.
J. R. Jones Sons & Co Kalamazoo.
Kalamazoo Bread Co Kalamazoo.
Kalamazoo Paper Co Kalamazoo.
Kalamazoo Sled Co., W. E. Kidder, secretary-treasurer-
manager Kalamazoo.
Kalamazoo Stove Co Kalamazoo.
Kales Haskel Co Detroit.
Keeler Brass Co Grand Rapids.
Kellogg & Buck Morenci.
C. Kern Brewing Co Port Huron.
King Milling Co Lowell.
King Paper Co. . .^ Kalamazoo.
Korff Manufacturing Co Lansing.
Charles W. Kotcher Detroit.
Lake Milling, Smelting & Refining Co Calumet.
Lake Superior & Ishpeming Ry. Co., H. R. Harris, gen-
eral manager Marquette.
Lake Superior Smelting Co Calumet.
Lansing Fuel & Gas Co Lansing.
Lamed Carter & Co Detroit.
La Salle Copper Co Calumet.
George E. Laurence & Son Lansing.
Launum Mining Co Calumet.
William O. Lee Co., W. O. Lee Port Huron.
Leisen & Henes Brewing Co Menominee.
Lentz Table Co Nashville.
Lewis-Geer Manufacturing Co., Willard W. Geer, vice presi-
dent Ypsilanti.
Lloyd Construction Co., E. F. Lloyd, president Detroit.
Loretto Iron Co Loretto.
Lufkin Rule Co Saginaw.
EMPLOYERS WHO ASSISTED. 229
Hugh Lyons & Co Lansing.
McClure Co Saginaw.
McCord Manufacturing Co Detroit.
Macey Co Grand Rapida.
Manistee Brick Co., H. W. Marsh Manistee.
Manistee Manufacturing Co Manistee.
Robert K. Mann Lumber Co Muskegon.
Markham Air Rifle Co Plymouth.
Marshall Furnace Co Marshall.
Menominee & Marinette Light & Traction Co Menominee.
Menominee River Brewing Co., Frank Erdlitz, secretary-
treasurer Menominee.
William B. Mershon & Co Saginaw.
Mershon Eddy Parker Co Saginaw.
Michigan Alkali Co Wyandotte.
Michigan Coal Operators' Association, George M. Hum-
phrey, attorney Saginaw.
Michigan Lubricator Co Detroit.
Michigan Malleable Iron Co Detroit.
Michigan Milling Co. Ann Arbor.
Michigan Motor Castings Co Flint.
Michigan Northern Power Co., L. C. Mackenzie Sault Ste. Marie.
Michigan Optical Co Detroit.
Michigan Screw Co Lansing.
Michigan Steel Casting Co Detroit.
Michigan Stove Co., Gray H. Barbour, vice president and
general manager Detroit.
Mitchell Bros. Co Cadillac.
Mitts & Merrill Saginaw.
Mohawk Mining Co Mohawk.
Monroe Glass Co Monroe.
Moore Plow & Implement Co Greenville.
Morgan & Wright, A. A. Templeton, vice president Detroit.
Morgan Lumber & Cedar Co Foster City.
Morley Bros Saginaw.
D. K. Moses & Co Sault Ste. Marie.
Munising, Marquette & Southeastern Ry. Co Marquette.
Murphy Power Co Detroit.
Muskegon Boiler Works, Samuel C. Eyke, secretary Muskegon.
Muskegon Knitting Mills and Muskegon Office Cabinet Co.,
Louis P. Haight Muskegon.
Muskegon Motor Specialties Co Muskegon.
Muskegon Traction and Lighting Co Muskegon.
Nadeau Bros Nadeau.
National Bank of Flint Flint.
National Can Co Detroit.
National Spring & Wire Co Albion.
Nelson Bros. Co Saginaw.
New Arcadian Copper Co Houghton.
New Baltic Copper Co Houghton.
Newton & Haggerty Ladder Co., C. H. Easton, secretary ... Ann Arbor.
New Way Motor Co .Lansing.
Northwestern Cooperage & Lumber Co Gladstone.
Novo Engine Co Lansing.
Oakland Motor Car Co Pontiac.
M. D. Olds Cheboygan.
Osceola Consolidated Mining Co Calumet.
Oval Wood Dish Co Traverse City."
Owosso Casket Co Owosso.
Owosso Creamery Co Owosso.
Owosso Manufacturing Co Owosso.
Owosso Sugar Co Lansing.
Packard Motor Car Co., F. R. Robinson, comptroller Detroit.
Page Woven Wire Fence Co., John E. Carr, treasurer Adrian.
Paige-Detroit Motor Car Co., B. C. Young, assistant treas-
urer Detroit.
A. B. Park Co... ..Adrian.
230 WOBKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
Pearce Hardware & Furniture Co. (Ltd.) Lake Linden.
Peerless Wire Fence Co Adrian.
Penberthy Injector Co Detroit.
Peninsular Milling Co., C. J. De Roo, manager Flint.
Peninsular Portland Cement Co Jackson.
Pennsylvania Salt Manufacturing Co Wyandotte.
People's Ice Co Detroit.
Pere Marquette Railroad Co., bills, Parker, Shields, &
Brown, general attorneys Detroit.
Peterson Brewing Co Grand Rapids.
Phoenix Brewing Co Bay City.
James Pickands & Co. (Ltd.) .- Marquette.
Pontiac Brush Co Pon tiac .
Portage Coal & Dock Co Hancock.
Port Huron Engine & Thrasher Co Port Huron.
Port Huron Gas Co Port Huron.
Port Huron Light & Power Co Port Huron.
Prescott Co Menominee.
Quality Broom Factory Flint.
Randall Lumber & Coal Co Flint.
Ranney Refrigerator Co Greenville.
Raynor & Taylor Detroit.
Republic Iron & Steel Co., Richard Jones, jr., general
attorney Negaunee.
Richardson Lumber Co Alpena.
Riverview Coated Paper Co., F. Pagenstuber, secretary Kalamazoo.
Roberts Brass Manufacturing Co., W. H. Roberts, secretary-
treasurer Detroit.
Roe Stephens Manufacturing Co., T. P. Stephens, secretary
and assistant treasurer Detroit.
E. P. Rowe Co Bad Axe.
Russell Motor Axle Co North Detroit.
A. H. Ryckman Saginaw.
Saginaw Manufacturing Co., Arnold Boutell, secretary-
treasurer Saginaw.
Saginaw Plate Glass Co Saginaw.
St. Johns Table Co Cadillac.
St. Louis Copper Co Calumet.
Louis Sands Salt & Lumber Co., George M. Clifton, secretay .Manistee.
Sanitary Knitting Co Grand Rapids.
San Telmo Cigar Manufacturing Co Detroit.
Charles A. Sauer & Co Ann Arbor.
Sears & Nichols Co Pentwater.
Seeman & Peters Saginaw.
Shaw Electric Crane Co Muskegon.
Sheffield Car Co., Edward B. Linsley, treasurer and general
manager Three Rivers.
C. C. Smith Boat & Engine Co Algonac.
Smith Bridgman Co Flint.
Solvay Process Co., J. D. Sanders, assistant manager Detroit.
Sparks Withington Co., W. J. Corbett Jackson.
Spietz & Worch Co Detroit.
Standard Computing Scale Co. (Ltd.) Detroit.
Standard Paper Co Kalamazoo.
Frederick Stearns & Co., Walter H. Blome, chief pharma-
cist Detroit.
Paul Steketee & Sons Grand Rapids.
Stephenson Charcoal Iron Co. Marquette.
Sterling & Skinner Manufacturing Co Detroit.
W. C. Sterling & Son Co Monroe.
Eugene Stewart Battle Creek.
The W. F. Stewart Co Flint.
W. F. Stimpson Co Detroit.
Nathan J. Stone Petoskey .
Sunday Lake Iron Co Wakefield.
Superior Copper Co Calumet.
Superior Seating Co., C. Maring Muskegon.
EMPLOYEES WHO ASSISTED. 231
Tamarack Mining Co Calumet.
F. Thoman Milling Co Lansing.
0. & W. ThumCo GrandRapids.
J. B. Timberlake & Sons (Inc.) Jackson.
Travelers Insurance Co., E. S. Raymond, manager of De-
troit branch Detroit.
Traverse City Iron Works Traverse City.
Union Carbide Co., Soo Works, C. T. Ayres, works manager. .Sault Ste. Marie.
Union Steam Pump Co., C. A. Stuck, sales department Battle Creek.
United Home Telephone Co Ludington.
United States Frumentum Co Detroit.
United Sates Gas Machine Co .Muskegon.
University of Michigan, Shirley W. Smith, secretary Ann Arbor.
Upjohn Co Kalamazoo.
Verona Mining Co Palatka.
Victoria Copper Mining Co., James P. Graves, treasurer. . .Ontonagon.
Vinton Co Detroit.
Voight Milling Co Grand Rapids.
G. von Platen Boyne City.
Wakefield Iron Co Wakefield.
Wells Fargo & Co Throughout State.
H. G. Wendland & Co Bay City.
L. E. Weng & Son Da^gett.
Werner & Pfleiderer Co .Saginaw.
West Michigan Furniture Co Holland.
Weston-Mott Co Flint.
What Cheer Coal Mining Co., A. N. Fancher Bay City.
W. H. White Co., W. L. Martin, secretary Boyne City.
White Pine Copper Co Calumet.
Wickwire Mining Co .Iron River.
John Widdicomb Co Grand Rapids.
Widdicomb Furniture Co., William Widdicomb, president. .Grand Rapids.
Wilhelm Furniture Co Sturgis.
Williams Bros. Co Cadillac.
Wilmarth Show Case Co Grand Rapids.
C. K. Wilson Body Co Detroit.
Winona Copper Co Winona.
Wisconsin Land & Lumber Co Hermansville.
Wolverine Brass Works Grand Rapids.
Wolverine Portland Cement Co., E. R. Root, secretary-
treasurer Coldwater.
Woodard Furniture Co Owosso.
Worcester Lumber Co. (Ltd.) Chassell.
World's Star Knitting Co Bay City.
Otto A. Wurm & Co Detroit.
Wyandot Copper Co., F. L. Van Orden, superintendent — Houghton.
Wyandotte Portland Cement Co Detroit.
Wyandotte Terminal Railroad Co Wyandotte.
Wyandotte Transportation Co Wyandotte.
Yeomans- Diver Co „ .Detroit.
Zeeland Furniture Manufacturing Co Zeeland.
Zeeland Milling Co Zeeland.
NEVADA.
Adams-McGill Co Ely.
Austin & Macpherson Sparks.
John S. Cook & Co Goldfield.
Copper National Bank East Ely.
Cotton-Turner Cigar Co Reno.
Eagle Drug Co. (Inc.), W. A. Brown, secretary Winnemucca.
Ely Securities Co East Ely.
Ely Townsite Co East Ely.
Ely Water Co East Ely.
D. J. Fitzgerald. Tonopah.
Gray, Reid, Wright Co Reno.
Hatch Leasing Co., N. P. R. Hatch, secretary-treasurer National.
Hilltop Milling & Reduction Co Hilltop.
232 WOBKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
C. L. Ketzmeyer Carson.
Kimberly Consolidated Mines Co Hilltop.
McGill National Bank McGill.
Nevada Northern Railway Co East Ely.
Riverside Mill Co Reno.
Steptoe Hotel Co East Ely.
Tranter & Staley (Inc.) Reno.
NEW HAMPSHIRE.
Boscawen Mills, Samuel C. Eastman, treasurer Concord.
Boulia-Gorrell Lumber Co Lakeport.
Dartmouth Press Hanover.
Dexter Richards & Sons Co., W. F. Richards, president Newport.
Fisk Paper Co., Frederick S. Leonard, agent Hinsdale.
Goodell Co., David H. Goodell, president Antrim.
Henneberry & Halligan, John Henneberry Concord.
Hillsboroough Mills, E. J. Abbott Wilton.
F. M. Hoyt Shoe Co., T. E. Cunningham, vice president. .Manchester.
New England Granite Works, George A. Ledward Concord.
New Hampshire Spinning Mills Penacook.
Pacific Mills, H. W. Owen, general superintendent Dover.
Frank R. Prescott Meredith.
Proctor Bros. & Co Nashua.
Somersworth Foundry Co Salmon Falls.
NEW JERSEY.
Algonquin Co Passaic.
Aristo Co Belleville.
Atlantic Vehicle Co Newark.
Barlow Foundry Co Newark.
Barrett Manufacturing Co., Geo. C. Russell, manager Elizabeth.
Barrett Manufacturing Co., A. H. Searles, purchasing
agent Shady Side.
Bayonne Supply Co Bayonne.
Bayway Chemical Co Elizabeth.
Daniel Bermes Boulevard Brewery Town of Union.
A. Bernhardt & Co Newark.
Brighton Mills, Wm. L. Lyall, treasurer Passaic.
W. C. Crosby Jamesburg.
Cumberland Glass Manufacturing Co., C. W. Shoemaker,
treasurer Bridgeton.
Diehl Manufacturing Co Elizabeth.
The Doherty & Wadsworth Co Paterson.
W. S. Eastlack Camden.
Enterprise Wall Paper Co Collingswood.
Christian Feigenspan, a corporation Newark.
Ferracute Machine Co Bridgeton.
Florence Iron Works Florence.
B. Frank Fox Hackettstown.
Garfield Worsted Mills Garfield.
Gera Mills Passaic.
Oliver H. Guttridge Co , Atlantic City.
Charles Hamburger Minotola.
Joseph Hensler Brewing Co Newark.
O. J. Hammell Co Pleasantville.
Hammerschlag Manufacturing Co Garfield.
Harding Box Co Paterson.
Hardright Brush Co Belleville.
Ingersoll-Rand Co., George R. Elder, vice president and
manager Phillipsburg.
Allen B. Laing Co Plainfield.
Lake Chemical Co New Brunswick.
Lembeck-Betz Eagle Brewing Co Jersey City.
John Lucas & Co. (Inc.), Ernest T. Trigg, vice president
and general manager Gibbsboro.
EMPLOYERS WHO ASSISTED. 233
The Ludlow Hub Co Peapack.
Thomas Maddock's Sons Co., W. W. Anderson, office man-
ager Trenton.
Manheimer & Sherman Camden.
Marbleoid Co., F. Maxwell Page, secretary New Durham.
Merck & Co Rahway.
New York & New Jersey Well Co., H. Estes Ridgewood.
George Ogden & Son Cape May City.
Orange Brewery Orange.
Original Trenton Cracker Co Trenton.
Osborne & Marsellis Co Montclair.
Pantasote Leather Co., E. W. Outerbridge, treasurer Passaic.
Passaic Cotton Mills Passaic.
Paterson Brewing & Malting Co Paterson.
Thomas Peppier & Son Hightstown.
H. L. Rapp Carpenterville.
Augustus Reeve Camden.
John A. Roebling's Sons Co., F. W. Roebling, jr., engineer-
ing department Trenton.
Schlitz Hotel, S. Ojserkis Co Atlantic City.
Silver-Chamberlin Co Clayton.
Sleeth Manufacturing Co., G. C. Sleeth, president Belleville.
Otis M. Townsend Ocean City.
Turner Machine Co Newark.
United States Steel Corporation, Raynal C. Boiling, gen-
eral solicitor Trenton.
Van Ness Bros Paterson.
Victor Talking Machine Co., E. R. Johnson, president,
Ralph L. Freemen, assistant secretary Camden.
Wharton Steel Co Wharton.
OHIO.
Abbott Manufacturing Co Cleveland.
W. J. Albrecht Toledo.
Alliance Clay Product Co Alliance.
Alliance Gas & Power Co Alliance.
American Art Works . Coshocton.
American Book Co., W. B. Thalh^imer, managing director. .Cincinnati.
American Fixture & Manufacturing Co Troy.
American Steel Foundries, W. H. Cameron, manager casu-
alty department Alliance.
American Straw Board Co Akron.
O. Armleder Co Cincinnati.
Ashtabula Paper & Twine Co., W. F. Hewins, manager Ashtabula.
Atkins & Pearce Manufacturing Co Cincinnati.
Aultman & Taylor Machinery Co., G. P. Alexander, treas-
urer Mansfield.
Baldwin Co. , G. W. Armstrong, jr. , president Cincinnati.
Bankers' Publishing Co., T. M. Thomas, president Toledo.
E. Becker Brewing Co Lancaster.
Beckett Paper Co Hamilton.
Bimel Buggy Co., T. M. Miller, general manager and treas-
urer * Sidney.
F. BissellCo., Ed. B. Terry, controller Toledo.
Black Diamond Co Columbus.
H. Black Co .Cleveland.
Brier Hill Steel Co. , J. E. Parker, secretary Youngstown.
Brown Lumber Co., F. A. Brown, general manager Massillon.
The Buckeye Steel Castings Co., S. P. Bush, president and
general manager Columbus.
Buckeye Twist Drill Co Alliance.
Busy Bee Candy Kitchen Co Columbus.
W. P. Callahan Co Dayton.
The Philip Carey Manufacturing Co Lockland.
Central Union Telephone & Telegraph Co Cleveland.
Cincinnati Milling Machine Co., C. Wood Walter, vice
president and secretary Cincinnati.
284 WOBKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
Cleveland-Cliffs Iron Co., R. C. Mann, auditor Cleveland.
Cleveland Foundry Co., D. C. Lowles, manager sevice
department Cleveland.
Cleveland Furnace Co., C. Birdsall Smith, treasurer Cleveland.
Cleveland Hardware Co., E. E. Adams, general superin-
tendent Cleveland.
Cleveland Steel Co Cleveland.
Colin Gardner Paper Co Middletown.
Colonial Pressed Brick Co Mogadore.
Columbus Buggy Co., G. J. Macy, auditor Columbus.
Columbus Grove Brick & Tile Co., D. M. Allen Columbus Grove.
Cooks Bros. Decorating Co., Max Cooks, secretary Cleveland.
C. & G. Cooper Co., D. B. Kirks, vice president Mount Vernon.
Crestline Manufacturing Co Crestline.
Crume Brick Co Dayton.
Dalzell Bros. Co Youngstown.
Dayton Art Glass Works Dayton.
Dayton Biscuit Co Dayton.
Deforest Sheet & Tinplate Co Niles.
Deisel-Wemmer Co., R. J. Plate, secretary-treasurer Lima.
Delphos Manufacturing Co., H. L. Leilich, president Delphog.
Donovan Wire & Iron Co Toledo.
Dover Fire Brick Co Cleveland.
East Liverpool Brick Manufacturing Co East Liverpool.
Ebert Brewing Co Ironton.
George M. Eidt Tiffin.
Electric Auto Lite Co Toledo.
Electric Products Co Cleveland.
Elyria, Iron & Steel Co Elyria.
Empire Rolling Mills Co Cleveland.
Estate Stove Co Hamilton.
Faulk Bros. Co East Liverpool.
Faultless Rubber Co., I. L. Miller, secretary Ashland.
Favorite Stove & Range Co., Charles C. Jelleff, purchasing
agent Piqua.
Ferro Machine & Foundry Co., C. Oglebay, president Cleveland.
J. J. Fleck Tiffin.
William Flood Co Cleveland.
Florentine Pottery Co Chillicothe.
Fowler & Palmer Bellefontaine.
Louis G. Freeman Co., Louis G. Freeman, president Cincinnati.
French & Hecht Springfield.
Fry Bros. & Co Cincinnati.
Gallon Handle & Manufacturing Co Galion.
Galion Metallic Vault Co Galion.
Gem Coal Co Nelsonville.
Gendron Wheel Co., Charles R. Wilhelm, treasurer Toledo.
Girard Iron Co Girard.
A. C. Gledhill Lumber Co Galion.
Gledhill & Krine Lumber Co Crestline
Globe-Wernicke Co Cincinnati.
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co Akron.
Graham Milling Co Lancaster.
Grant Hospital Co Columbus.
Great Lakes Engineering Works Ashtabula.
Halle Bros. Co Cleveland.
Hall-Van Gorder Co Cleveland.
Hamilton Foundry & Machine Co Hamilton.
Hampden Watch Co Canton.
W. S. Hawker Manufacturing Co Dayton.
Helmet Co Cincinnati.
Huber Manufacturing Co Marion.
Hist Potato Machinery Co Alliance.
Hocking Valley Products Co Columbus.
Samuel J. Hoerner & Co Dayton.
F. Hohlfelder Co., Alfred J. Kroenke, secretary and general
manager * Cleveland.
EMPLOYERS WHO ASSISTED. 235
Home Brewing Co Canton.
Home Telephone Co Chillicothe.
Hooven & Allison Co Xenia.
Hoyle & Scott Cambridge.
W. A. Hunt Cambridge.
Harry B. Hursh Mansfield.
Ironton Lumber Co Ironton.
Iron ton Portland Cement Co., A. C. Steece, treasurer and
general manager Ironton.
Jeffrey Manufacturing Co Columbus.
Joseph & Feiss Co Cleveland.
Joel Kennedy & Son Cincinnati.
James Kidney Co Cincinnati.
Kittelberger Electric Co Akron.
Conrad Krause Cleveland.
H. Kruse Show Case Co Cincinnati.
Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway Co., R. J. Cowin,
agent, D. T. Murray, superintendent Cleveland.
Lancaster Glass Co Lancaster.
Lancaster Leather Co Lancaster.
Roderick Lean Manufacturing Co Mansfield.
Leidecker Tool Co Marietta.
Libbey Glass Co., J. D. Robinson, secretary Toledo.
Lima Packing Co Lima.
J. W. Luther Cleveland.
Lynn-Superior Co Cincinnati.
McCaskey Register Co., F. E. Henry, jr., auditor Alliance.
Marietta Chair Co Marietta.
Marietta Stone Co Marietta.
Marion Steam Shovel Co., M. A. Pickering, superintendent
of time Marion.
Massillon Wire Basket Co Massillon.
Mead Pulp & Paper Co., R. T. Houk, secretary Chillicothe.
Middletown Artificial Ice Co., A. Bachmann, secretary-
treasurer Middletown.
Milburn Wagon Co Toledo.
Moore Oil Co Cincinnati.
Murbach Coal Co Elyria.
National Supply Co., Charles R. Clapp, secretary- treasurer.. Toledo.
Nelson-Myers Co West Manchester.
Newark Ohio Furniture Co Newark.
A. T. Nye & Son Co Marietta.
Ober Manufacturing Co Chagrin Falls.
Ohio Confection Co Cleveland.
Ohio Motor Co Sandusky.
Ohio Nut & Bolt Co Berea.
Ohio Quarries Co., F. D. Kellogg, secretary- treasurer Cleveland.
Ohio Seamless Tube Co Shelby.
Ohio Steel Foundry Co Lima.
Ohio Varnish Co., J. W. McKichnie, auditor Cleveland.
Ohio & Western Pennsylvania Dock Co., R. F. Grant,
general counsel Cleveland.
M. Ohmers' Sons Co Dayton.
Orrville Bedding Co OrrviUe.
Patterson Foundry & Machine Co East Liverpool.
Peerless Paper Box Manufacturing Co., E. A. Roege Cleveland.
Peters & Herron Dash Co Columbus.
Philadelphia Rubber Works Co., J. S. Lowman, vice-
president Akron.
George E. Pomeroy Co., George E. Pomeroy Toledo.
Portsmouth Brewing & Ice Co., Paul Esselborn, president
and treasurer Portsmouth.
Ralston Steel Car Co., J. S. Ralston, president Columbus.
Rice & Hutchins Cincinnati Co Cincinnati.
S. W. Robinson & Son Co Columbus.
Rodefer Glass Co., C. M. Rodefer, owner Bellaire.
A. I. Root Co., J. T. Calvert, treasurer Medina.
Russell & Co Massillon.
236 WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
St. Marys Drilling Co St. Marys.
Sears & Nichols Co Chillicothe.
Seiss Manufacturing Co Toledo.
Selby Shoe Co Portsmouth.
Shartle Bros. Machinery Co Middletown.
Shaw & Welty Shirt Co Zanesville.
Charles Shem & Sons Alliance.
J. Simon & Co Cincinnati.
Sommer Motor Co Bucyrus.
Southern Wheel Stock Co Iron ton.
Star Brewing Co Minster.
Sterling Grind ing Wheel Co., George S. Tillotson, manager. .Tiffin.
Edwin A. Stevens Co Cleveland.
G. S. Stewart Co Norwalk.
Stockham Co Portsmouth.
Straitsville Impervious Brick Co New Straitsville.
Sullivan Printing Works Co Cincinnati.
Superior Foundry Co Cleveland.
Superior Portland Cement Co Superior.
Swink Printing Press Co., H. L. Leilich, president Delphos.
John Theobald & Son Cincinnati.
Thew Automatic Shovel Co., F. A. Smythe Lorain.
Tiffin Hoop Co Tiffin.
Tiffin Wagon Co., W. K. Shelly, secretary and manager Tiffin.
William Tod Co Youngstown.
I. G. Tolerton & Son Alliance.
Tool Steel Gear & Pinion Co Cincinnati.
Troy Carriage Sunshade Co Troy.
Union Rolling Mill Co Cleveland.
United States Malleable Iron Co Toledo.
United States Steel Corporation, Raynal C. Bulling, general
solicitor Youngstown.
Upson Nut Co., H. P. Bingham, assistant treasurer Cleveland.
Virden Manufacturing Co Cleveland.
Wait Furniture Co Portsmouth.
Washington Ice Co Washington.
M. WerkCo St. Bernard.
J. T. Weybrecht's Sons Alliance.
Whitmer-Jackson Sash & Door Co Cleveland.
Wrenn Paper Co., John Gibson, jr., treasurer Middletown.
Yellow Poplar Lumber Co .- Coal Grove.
Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co Youngstown.
RHODE ISLAND.
Charles E. Angell Providence.
Ashaway Line & Twine Manufacturing Co., A. J. Crandall,
vice president Ashaway.
Beaman & Smith Co. , E. A. Beaman Providence.
Joseph Benn & Sons (Inc.) Greystone.
Berkeley Co., William Gammell Providence.
Callender, McAuslan & Troup Co., W. R. Callender Providence.
Collyer Machine Co Pawtucket.
United States Cotton Co., David Grove, agent Central Falls.
Crown Garage Co Providence.
Esmond Mills, John A. Pearson, secretary Esmond.
O. P. French & Sons Co Woonsocket.
Goodwin-Sherman Motor Car Co. (Inc.) Providence.
Gorham Manufacturing Co Providence.
J. C. Hall Co Providence.
William H. Haskell Manufacturing Co Pawtucket.
Jenckes Spinning Co Pawtucket.
Jacob & 0. La Salle Pawtucket.
B. Morgan Newport.
New England Butt Co Providence.
New England Coal Co Woonsocket.
James E. O 'Connor Providence.
L. F. Pease Co. (Inc.) Providence.
EMPLOYERS WHO ASSISTED. 237
Providence Dyeing, Bleaching & Calendering Co Providence.
Providence E ngineering Works Providence.
Rhode island Label Works, Fred Talcott, proprietor Providence.
Rhode Island Rug Works Providence.
Benjamin F. Tanner Co Newport.
WASHINGTON.
City of Aberdeen, P. F. Clark, city clerk Aberdeen.
American Electric Co., J. R. Bosch, manager Seattle.
American Portable House Co., Charles M. Howe, secretary. .Seattle.
Anacortes Water Co., Douglass Allmond, president and man-
ager Anacortea.
Kan A. Anderson Sheet Metal Works Tacoma.
Atlas Foundry & Machine Co Tacoma.
Seth A. Atwood Paint & Wall Paper Co. Bellingham.
Automatic Sprinkler Co. of America, Philip Gearhart, con-
tracting agent Seattle.
A. J. Bailey Seattle.
Bankers' Printing Co. , F. G. Drew, president Seattle.
Bayside Iron Works Everett.
Belcher Mining Co., W. Anderson Republic.
Bellingham Livery & Transfer Co South Bellingham.
Bellingham Truck Co , Bellingham.
Belt Line Shingle Co., M. J. Carter, secretary Seattle.
C. G. Betts Co Spokane.
Blaine Steam Laundry, S. R. Tharp, proprietor Blaine.
Blaine Water Co., J. S. Crilly, manager Blaine.
Bolcom Mills (Inc.) Seattle.
Bolcom-Vanderhoof Logging Co., G. A. Strouse Seattle.
Frank Brockman Seattle.
George Broom Seattle.
S. E. Brown & Co Seattle.
Buchanan Lumber Co Olympia.
H. J. Burns Spokane.
Burpee & Letson (Ltd.), C. B. Burpee, president-manager. . .South Bellingham.
Burr Electric Co. , M. Burr Spokane.
Butler Construction Co., W. T. Butler, manager .Seattle.
Butler Lumber Co • Belleville.
Byrne-Turner Co Bellingham.
Canyon Lumber Co Everett.
Carstens Packing Co Tacoma.
Cascade Laundry Co Spokane.
Central Mill Co Tacoma.
Clark Creek Logging Co Kelso.
Clarke County Abstract & Loan Co Vancouver.
dayman Candy Co. (Inc.), Margaret dayman Spokane.
Climax Shingle Co - Ferndale.
Clipper Shingle Co -Clipper.
Clyde Warehouse Co Walla Walla. .
Coast Printing Service (Inc.), F. V. Van Dusen, president.. .Seattle.
Coats-Fordney Logging Co Aberdeen.
Colson Construction Co., George B. Worley Seattle.
Columbia Brewing Co Tacoma.
Columbia Contract Co Camas.
Colville Examiner Colville.
Commercial Bindery & Printing Co. (Inc.), G. W. Anderson,
president-manager Tacoma.
J. E. Connolly Shelton.
Cornell Bros Tacoma.
Crab Creek Lumber Co North Yakima.
Creech Bros. Lumber Co Raymond.
Creston Union Grain Co Creston.
U. G. Crisp Garfield.
William M. Curtis Co., William M. Curtis, president Seattle.
Davenport Grain Co., W. 0. Mansfield, manager Davenport.
Day Lumber Co., C. C. Bronson, secretary-treasurer Seattle.
288 WOBKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
Dayton Steam Laundry Dayton.
S. P. Dixon & Co., C. E. Remsbere, vice-president Seattle.
Dodwell Dock & Warehouse Co. (Inc. ) Seattle.
Doerr-Mitchell Electric Co. , R. Doerr Spokane.
Dole Lumber Co Vancouver.
C. H. Driscoll & Co. (Inc.) Sumas.
E. I. du Pont de Nemours Powder Co., of Delaware, J. P.
Laffey, manager Wilmington, Del.
Eagle Bottling Works Tacoma.
Eastern Railway & Lumber Co Centralia.
Town of Eatonville, Charles C. Biggs, clerk Eaton ville.
Ebey Shingle Co Everett.
Echo Valley & Colyille Phone Co Colville.
Erickson Construction Co., C. E. Erickson, secretary Seattle.
Frank Everett & Co Chehalis.
. Everett.
.Tekoa.
. Palouse.
John Finn Metal Works Seattle.
FOBS Electric Shop Bremerton.
"E. L. French Co Vancouver.
Galbraith & Son Spokane.
Garfield Town & Rural Telephone Co., H. S. McClure,
secretary Garfield.
General Railway Signal Co., George D. Morgan, president-
treasurer Rochester, N. Y.
Globe Lumber Co. (Inc.), W. C. Miles, manager Globe.
A. M. Goddard Tacoma.
Orrin S . Good Spokane.
Gould Lumber Co Seattle.
August Granstrand Walla Walla.
Grays Harbor Lodging Co. , C. H. Shutt, president Aberdeen.
Green Mill Co. (Inc.), W. S. Green, president Quilcene.
Greenough Bros. Co. (Inc.) Spokane.
George P. Haley Seattle.
A. Hambach Co Seattle.
Hamilton Logging Co., William C. Butler Everett.
Hammond Milling Co. Seattle.
Hanford Irrigation & Power Co Hanford.
Hartline Mill & Elevator Co Hartline.
Haukeli-Hegg & Co. , G. R. Haukeli Aberdeen.
Lende Hausen Everson.
Hemrich Bros. Brewing Co Seattle.
Hercules Sandstone Co Tenino.
Hibbard-Stewart Co. (Inc.), C. L. Hibbard Seattle.
W. Foster Hidden Vancouver.
Hidden Bros., W. F. Hidden Vancouver.
S. Hilliard Spokane.
Hillman Electric Co North Yakima.
Hillyard Lumber Co. , Albert Orr, secretary Hillyard.
Home Telephone & Telegraph Co Spokane.
Home Water & Power Co Mount Vernon,
Hoquiam Water Co., A. G. Anderson, secretary Hoquiam.
J. E. Horton Spokane.
Howard Spinning Wilbur.
Independent Laundry Everett.
Ingles Sawmill Lincoln.
International Lime Co Sumas.
Iowa Fuel Co. (Inc.) Tacoma.
J. M. Jensen. J. M. Jensen, assistant postmaster Chehalis.
Jersey Creamery Co Colfax.
N. Jerns Bellingham.
J. Jorgensen Yacolt.
Kalama Local Telephone Exchange, G. M. Coffey, manager. Kalama.
Keeslings Boat Yard, C. C. Keesling Anacortea.
F. Kerr Folliett Everett.
Key City Light & Power Co Port Townsend.
EMPLOYEES WHO ASSISTED. 239
Key City Packing; Co., E. A. Sims Port Townsend.
Kilbourne & Clark Manufacturing Co Seattle.
L. R. Lambert Shelton.
G. M. Lauridsen Port Angelea.
0. H. Lee Shingle Co Maltby.
Leland Lumber Co Leland.
Charles E. Lind Bellingham.
A. G. Linhoff Seattle.
G. P. Lobberton. North Yakima.
Lochslog Shingle Co Hartford.
Lowman & Hanford Co Seattle.
Loyal Railway Co Seattle.
Lummi Bay Packing Co Bellingham.
Lynden Department Store (Inc. ), J. B. Banhave, secretary . Lynden.
William McCush Bellingham.
J. W. McDonald & Co Hartline.
P. E. McHugh Tacoma.
J. J. McNerney, Huff, secretary Wenatchee.
George T. Maginnis Seattle.
W. F. Manney & Co Seattle.
Marcus Light & Water Co Marcus.
Mason County Logging Co Bordeaux.
J. G. Megler& Co Brookfield.
Mendota Coal & Coke Co., B. H. Johnston Centralia.
Metcalf Shingle Co., John Q. Harris Kelso.
Mineral Lake Logging Co Tacoma.
Model Steam Laundry Colfax.
Monroe Investment Co. (Inc.) Monroe.
Robert Moran Rosario.
Morse Hardware Co. (Inc.) Bellingham.
Katharine Murray Ellensbury.
N . Nelson Aberdeen.
Newport Telephone Co., W. M. Anderson Newport.
Newport Water Co Newport.
Nippon Lumber Co Alpine.
North Bend Lumber Co., R. W. Virredge, secretary-
treasurer Edgewick.
Northern Clarke County Light & Power Co Yacolt.
Northern Coast Timber Co Tacoma.
North Fort Logging Co Ariel.
Northwest Hardware Co Bellingham.
Northwest Lumber Co Seattle.
North Western Lumber Co Hoquiam.
North Yakima Brewing & Malting Co North Yakima.
H. F. Norton Co. (Inc.) ,. Seattle.
Oak Point Piling & Lumber Co., William J. Redmond,
secretary Oak Point.
O'Connell Lumber Co., M. T. O'Connell Winlock.
Ben Olson Co '. Tacoma.
Oso Logging Co Oso.
Olswang Bros. & Co Seattle.
Olympia Brewing Co., Peter S. Schmidt, vice president. . .Olympia.
Ostrander Railway & Timber Co., E. S. Collins, president
and manager Ostrander.
Pacific Box Co Tacoma.
Pacific Car Co., L. J. W. Jones, president Tacoma.
Pacific Coast Elevator Co Portland.
Pacific Coast Gypsum Co Tacoma.
Pacific Coast Stamp Works, Charles Sewell, secretary-
treasurer Seattle.
Pacific Coast Steamship Co., J. C. Ford, president Seattle.
Pacific Coast Sirup Co Seattle.
Pacific State Lumber Co Tacoma.
Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Co Seattle.
Palace Barber Shop Bellingham.
Palmer Lumber & Manufacturing Co Chehalis.
Panhandle Lumber Co. (Ltd.), 0. N. Buffrmre, superin-
tendent . .lone.
240 WOBKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
Pearson Construction Co Seattle.
Hans Pederson Seattle.
Poison Logging Co., Alex Poison, president Hoquiam.
Pontiac Brick & Tile Co., D. Q. Power Seattle.
Porey Manufacturing Co Hoquiam.
Prosser Flour Mills, Taylor Prosser.
Puget Mill Co., E. G. Ames Seattle.
Puget Sound Traction, Light & Power Co., A. W. Leonard,
vice president Bellingham.
Puget Sound Traction, Light & Power Co., F. Dabney,
assistant treasurer , . . Seattle.
Queen City Machine Works, E. P. Ederer, proprietor Seattle.
Rathforn Reduction Works, S. Bradley, president Republic.
John Rausch Vancouver.
Rautman Plumbing & Heating Co., F. C. Newport Seattle.
Raymond Water Co Raymond.
E. A. Reddish & Co. (Inc.) Tacoma.
Reid Bros. Co South Bellingham.
Rhodes Bros. Co., L. M. Burnell Seattle.
Otto Roseleaf Seattle .
Roslyn-Cascade Coal Co., Cyrus Gates, treasurer South Bellingham.
Roslyn Fuel Co Seattle .
C. E. Ross Chewelah.
St. Paul & Tacoma Lumber Co., Harrison C. Foster, sec-
ond vice president Tacoma.
Salsich Lumber Co ^ McKenna.
Seattle Brewing & Malting Co., Charles W. Loomis, secre-
tary Seattle.
Seattle Cap Manufacturing Co Seattle.
Seattle Construction & Dry Dock Co Seattle.
Seattle Lighting Co <.. .Seattle.
Seattle Machine Works (Inc.) Seattle.
Seattle Southeastern Railway Co Tacoma.
Sedro-Woolley Steam Laundry Sedro-Woolley.
Shelden's Lunch, G. Shelden, proprietor Tacoma.
Shepard & Dennis Transfer Co Raymond.
Sherman Printing & Binding Co Seattle.
Silver Lake Railway & Lumber Co Castle Rock.
Simonds Manufacturing Co Seattle.
Dr. L. B. Sims Tacoma.
Skelly Lumber Co., L. E. Skelly, secretary-treasurer Laurel.
S. E. Slade Lumber Co., W. R. Mara Aberdeen.
Grant Smith & Co Seattle.
Snohomish Logging Co., Chris Gilson, manager Snohomish.
S. A. Soule Frances.
City of South Bend, G. G. Hall, city engineer South Bend.
City of Spokane Spokane.
Spokane Bakery Co Spokane.
Standard Clay Co Tacoma.
Standard Laundry Everett.
Standard Oil Oil Co., John McLean, special agent Seattle.
Star Carriage Co Seattle.
Stevens County Power & Light Co Colville.
J. C. Stitt Bay View.
R. J. Stoner Centralia.
O. H. Stratton Spokane.
Suess Glass Co Seattle.
Sunset Timber Co Raymond.
Superior Portland Cement Co Seattle.
Tacoma Engraving Co., L. J. Brown Tacoma.
Tacoma Foundry & Machine Co Tacoma.
Tacoma Mill Co., W. A. Whitman, resident manager Tacoma.
Tacoma Ornamental Iron Works (Inc.) Tacoma.
Tacoma Smelting Co., H. Y. Walker, manager Tacoma.
Tacoma Trading Co Tacoma.
Taylor Mill Co.. Seattle.
Tenino Stone Co. (Inc.) Tenino.
EMPLOYERS WHO ASSISTED. 241
Three Lakes Lumber Co Three Lakes.
Trade Register (Inc.), William R. Saunders, secretary and
manager .Seattle.
S. W. True Spokane.
Trout Lake Lumber Co Eatonville
Trustee Co. of Spokane, R. F. Hanley, secretary Spokane.
Tucker Hanford & Co Seattle.
Tu]l &Gibbs Spokane.
W. A. Turne^ Tacoma.
Union Iron Worb» Spokane.
Valley Construction Co., O. L. Hanson, president North Yakima.
J. A. Veness Lumber, A. C. Shines Winlock.
Vermont Marble Co Tacoma.
B. H. Vollans Everett.
W. M. Walker, W. M. Walker North Yakima.
Walla Walla Brewing Co Walla Walla.
Walla Walla Creamery Walla Walla.
Ware Bros. Co, T. B. Ware, secretary Spokane.
Washington Portland Cement Co., Arthur G. Smith, sec-
retary and general manager Concrete.
Washington Shoe Manufacturing Co Seattle.
Washington Western Railway Co., G. E. Moore, general
manager Three Lakes.
Waterville Railway Co., S. A. Calderhead, manager Waterville.
G.A.Weber Tacoma.
J. T. West Sumas.
S . Westberg & Co Steilacoom.
West Coast Lumber Manufacturers' Association, W. C. Miles,
manager Tacoma.
West Coast Wagon Co Tacoma.
Western Soap Co Spokane.
R. M. Westover, R. M. Westover Everett.
Wheeler Reese Lumber Co., E. W. Burnham Tacoma.
S. P. White & Son Vancouver.
White Bluffs & Columbia River Telephone Co White Bluffs.
White Star Laundry, Charles irishman, manager. Walla Walla.
Whitney Co Seattle .
Willapa Electric Co Raymond.
Willapa Lumber Co., F. C. Schoemaker, secretary Raymond.
Yukon Lumber Co., A. V. Gray, president Mukilteo.
Zimmerman Degen Shoe Co Seattle.
M . P . Zindorf Seattle.
WISCONSIN.
Ashland Brewing Co Ashland.
Austin, Fehr & Gehrz Milwaukee.
Badger Stone Co Fountain City.
George Banta Publishing Co., George Banta, president. . . .Menasha.
Biersach and Niedermeyer Co Milwaukee.
Bock, Meyer & Brown Livingston.
Brandt-Dent Co Watertown.
Brown Bros. Lumber Co Rhinelander.
Brown-Mitcheson Co. , Francis A. Brown Marinette.
Brunet Falls Manufacturing Co Cornell.
Bucyrus Co., William W. Coleman, president South Milwaukee.
Campbell and Cameron Co Oshkosh.
Canada Atlantic Transit Co. of United States Milwaukee (Duluth,
Minn.)
Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Co.,
James B . Sheehan , general solicitor Eau Claire (St. Paul,
Minn.)
Con way Veneered Door and Mantel Co Milwaukee.
Cream City Brewing Co Milwaukee.
Cream City Sash & Door Co Milwaukee.
Currie Bros. Co Milwaukee.
Cutler-Hammer Manufacturing Co Milwaukee.
30003— S. Doc. 419, 63-2 16
242 WOBKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
Cutting & Thompson Co Bloomer.
Davis Manufacturing Co Milwaukee.
Doud, Sons & Co Winona, Minn.
Eclipse Installment Co Milwaukee.
Electrical Supply Co Madison.
E. W. Ellis Lumber Co Grand Rapids.
Evinrude Motor Co Milwaukee.
Falk Co., E. A. Wurster, secretary-treasurer Milwaukee.
Farmers Threshermen Co Eau Galle.
Federal MaUeable Co West Allia.
Federal Rubber Manufacturing Co Cudahy.
Fond du Lac Shirt & Overall Co Fond du Lac.
Fountain-Campbell Lumber Co Donald.
Gem Hammock & Fly-Net Co Milwaukee.
Geuder, Paeschke & Frey Co., F. J. Frey, secretary-treas-
urer Milwaukee.
Globe Seamless Steel Tubes Co '. Milwaukee.
Wm. Goodrich & Co Milwaukee.
H. C. Graf , Baraboo.
Chas. Greisen .... Sturgeon Bay.
Hardy-Ryan Abstract Co Waukesha.
Harley Davidson Motor Co Milwaukee.
Harsh & Edmonds Shoe Co Milwaukee.
G. Heileman Brewing Co., Thomas H. Bailey La Crosse.
A. J. Hilbert & Co Milwaukee.
M. Hilty Lumber Co Milwaukee.
Holt Lumber Co Oconto.
Hotel Blatz, Munsche & Thierbach, managers Milwaukee.
Hummel & Downing Co Milwaukee.
Hussa Brewing Co ..... Bangor.
Joannes Bros. Co Green Bay.
Kenfield-Lamoreaux Co Washburn.
John B. A. Kern & Sons Milwaukee.
Kieckhefer Box Co., J. W. Kieckhefer, secretary Milwaukee.
Kiel Furniture Co Milwaukee.
Knapstein Brewing Co New London.
Koehring Machine Co Milwaukee.
Kremer Drug Co Fond du Lac.
La Crosse Plow Co., C. W. Dickinson, assistant secretary. .. La Crosse.
Lemke Electric Co '. Milwaukee.
Leona Garment Co La Crosse.
Loeffelholz Co Milwaukee.
Macomber & Whyte Rope Co., Geo. S. Whyte, president... Kenosha.
Marathon Paper Mills Co Rothschild.
Mellen Lumber Co Mellen.
Menasha Wooden Ware Co. . . . . Menasha.
C. & J. Michel Brewing Co La Crosse.
Milwaukee Malting Co .... ... ..... .Milwaukee.
Modern Steel Structural Co Waukesha.
Morawetz Co. Milwaukee.
National Box Co .Milwaukee.
Northern Paper Mills Green Bay.
Northwestern Manufacturing Co Fort Atkin son.
Northwestern Motor Institute Milwaukee.
L. L. Olds Seed Co Madison.
Optenberg Iron Works
Oshkosh Brewing Co Oshk(
Oshkosh Fuel Co ..Oshkosh.
Pawling & Harnischfeger Co Milwaukee.
Patten Paper Co. (Ltd.) Appleton.
W. S. Patterson Co., H. C. Getschow, secretary-treasurer... Appleton.
Patton Paint Co Milwaukee.
Allan E. Peacock ^. . Lake Geneva.
Peck-Harare Manufacturing Co .". . .Berlin.
Peoples Brewing Co . Oshkosh.
Phenix Manufacturing Co Milwaukee.
George Poppert Manufacturing Co. North Milwaukee.
TRADES UNIONS THAT AIDED. 243
Power & Mining Machinery Co Cudahy.
Racine Sattley Co., H. E. Miles Racine.
The William Rahr Sons' Co .Manitowoc.
Philip Rothman & Co Stevens Point.
Schissler Bros Milwaukee.
A. George Schulz Co., T. Benj. Thompson Milwaukee.
Margaret Schwalbe Green Bay.
Sherwood & Me Williams (Inc.) Madison.
A. O. Smith Co., B. Rosing, superintendent welfare depart-
ment Milwaukee .
Smith, Barnes & Strohber Co., E. M. Eastman, manager North Milwaukee.
Geo. H. Smith Steel Casting Co Milwaukee.
J. H. Smith Milwaukee.
Southern Wisconsin Railway Co., F. W. Montgomery, presi-
dent Madison.
Stegeman Motor Car Co Milwaukee.
Stolle Lumber Co Tripoli.
Stotzer Granite Co Portage.
Sumner & Morris Madison.
Estate of August Thielke Mayville.
Thilmany Pulp & Paper Co >. Kaukauna.
Thompson Bros.' Boat Manufacturing Co Peshtigo.
Tiger Drill Manufacturing Co Beaver Dam.
Tower Clothing Co., Lewis H. Larson, president and treas-
urer Superior.
Tuttle Press Co Appleton.
United States Glue Co., W. G. Hanson, manager. Milwaukee.
Valders Lime & Stone Co Valders.
F. Vilins & Son Green Bay.
Waukesha Manufacturing Co Waukesha.
Wausau Box & Lumber Co Wausau.
Wausau Sulphate Fibre Co Mosinee.
Wells Dry Goods Co Delavan.
Paul Wenzel Co Augusta.
Westboro Lumber Co Westboro.
Western States Envelope Co Milwaukee.
Western Steel & Iron Works De Pere.
Wisconsin Bridge & Iron Co., R. Simmerling North Milwaukee.
Wisconsin Fruit Package Co., E. A. Schmidt Crandon.
Wisconsin Furniture Co Milwaukee.
Wisconsin Tissue Paper Co Appleton.
Worden Allen Co., P. C. Burrill Milwaukee.
TRADES UNION REPRESENTATIVES.
Letters of inquiry as to the operation of the workingmen's com-
Eensation acts were addressed to the secretaries of the following State
^derations and city central labor unions of the American Federation
of Labor, and replies were received from many of them which were
helpful to the committee in preparing this report:
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR.
STATE BRANCHES.
California, Paul Scharrenberg San Francisco.
Connecticut, R. P. Cunningham Danbury.
Illinois, Edwin R. Wright Chicago.
Iowa, J. H. Strief Sioux City.
Kansas, George B. Edgell Leavenworth.
Maryland-District of Columbia, George M. Henderson Baltimore.
Massachusetts, Martin T. Joyce Boston.
Michigan, Homer F. Waterman .Kalamazoo.
Minnesota, W. E. McEwen Duluth.
Nebraska, W. A. Chrisman Omaha.
New Hampshire, J. J. Coyne Manchester.
244 WOBKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
New Jersey, Henry F. Hilfers Newark.
Ohio, Harry D. Thomas Cleveland.
Oregon, Ed. J. Stack Portland.
Rhode Island, L. E. Hersey Providence.
Texas, John R. Spencer Waco.
Washington, E. P. Marsh Everett.
West Virginia, Frank W. Snyder Charleston.
Wisconsin, J. J. Handley Milwaukee.
CITY CENTRAL LABOR UNIONS.
ARIZONA.
Warren District Trades Assembly, Charles H. Smith Bisbee.
Central Labor Council, George G. Waterman Globe.
Trades Council, Nichols Edwards Phoenix.
Trades Assembly, N. W. McGhee Prescott.
Central Labor Union, W. J. Bray Tucson.
CALIFORNIA.
Labor Council, J. J. Alldridge Bakersfield.
Labor Council, C. W. Niles Coalinga.
Federated Trades Council, George Keeling Eureka.
Federated Trades and Labor Council, F. P. Lamoreux Fresno.
Central Labor Council, L. W. Butler Los Angeles.
Central Labor Council. Wm; A. Spooner Oakland.
Central Labor Union, H. A. Huff Pasadena.
Central Labor Council, L. A. Warner Petaluma.
Contra Costa Central Labor Council, Harry B. Wiese Point Richmond.
Labor Council, Mr. Gilbert Riverside County.
Federated Trades Council, Frank Cooke Sacramento.
Tri-City Central Labor Union, J. T. Wilson San Bernardino.
Federated Trades and Labor Council, Ira H. Markwith San Diego.
Labor Council, John A. O'Connell San Francisco.
Central Labor Council, F. J. Hepp San Jose.
Marin County Labor Council, F. von Bima San Rafael.
Central Labor Council, John Walker Santa Rosa.
Central Labor Council of San Joaquin County, George A.
Dean Stockton.
Trades and Labor Council, E. C. Berry Vallejo.
CONNECTICUT.
Central Labor Union, John J. O'Neill Bridgeport.
Central Labor Union, Edwin Daniels Danbury.
Central Labor Union, James J. O'Donnell Derby.
Central Labor Union, P. P. Reilly Hartford.
Central Labor Union, George J. Stanley FerHen.
Central Labor Union, Carl A. Ahlstrom £ ew Britain.
Trades Council, Joseph J. Reilly New Haven.
Central Labor Union, George Goss New London.
Central Labor Union, Walter H. Spaulding Norwich.
Central Labor Union, Mrs. Fannie J. Joyce South Norwalk.
Central Labor Union, James F. Jerman Stamford.
Central Labor Union, Charles E. Iserman Thompsonville.
Central Labor Union, J. J. Houlihan Wallingford.
Central Labor Union, P. J. Lynch Waterbury.
Central Labor Union, Jos. W. Beauchemin Willimantic.
ILLINOIS.
Trades and Labor Assembly, C. E. Sawyer Alton.
Trades and Labor Assembly, O. N. Ament Aurora.
Trades Council, Harry E. Morrow Beardstown.
Trades and Labor Assembly, John Mitchell Beckemeyer.
Trades and Labor Assembly, Charles Muendlein Belleville.
TRADES tnSTIONS THAT AIDED. 245
Trades Council, B. J. Smith Benton.
Trades and Labor Assembly, John J. Collins Bloomington.
Trades and Labor Assembly, Gus Knies Breese.
Central Labor Union, Eugene Shiffert Cairo.
Trades and Labor Assembly, Fred Lee, sr Carlinville.
Central Labor Union, J. 0. Davis Carrier Mills.
Central Trades and Labor Assembly, Lewis Poole Centralia.
Federation of Labor, E. N. Nockels Chicago.
Trades and Labor Assembly, Thomas H. Ness Chicago Heights.
Central Labor Union, Fred Saul Christopher.
Trades Council, E. W. Cross Collinsville.
Trades and Labor Council, S. T. Leonard Danville.
Trades and Labor Assembly, Charles Wright Decatur.
Central Labor Union, H. C. Roorback Duquoin.
Trades and Labor Union, R. R. Humphries East St. Louis.
Trades and Labor Council, W. C. Engelmann Edwardsville.
Trades Council, W. A. Turner Eldorado.
Trades Council, A. B. Winne Elgin.
Labor Council, M. K. Bauer Evanston.
Trades and Labor Council, W. W. Wheat Freeport.
Trades and Labor Assembly, James W. Ramp Galesburg.
Allied Trades and Labor Assembly, J. E. Settles Gillespie.
Tri-City Central Trades Council, Thos. M. Cavanagh Granite City.
Trades and Labor Assembly, James H. Hubbard Harrisburg.
Trades Council, Luther Chapman Herrin.
Trades Council, Henry Murray Hillsboro.
Trades and Labor Assembly, Abe L. Wood Jacksonville.
Trades Council, J. E. Sullius Johnson City.
Central Trades and Labor Council, H. A. Hanson Joliet.
Federation of Labor, Charles Sievers Kankakee.
Calumet Joint Labor Council, H . D . Fiester Kensington.
Trades and Labor Assembly, W. H. Aldrich Kewanee.
Trades and Labor Council, James F. Foley La Salle.
Trades and Labor Council, W. J. Williams Lincoln.
Trades Council, W. H. Rix Marion.
Trades and Labor Assembly, Ed Holmes Marissa.
Trades and Labor Assembly, George Deeke Mascoutah.
Trades and Labor Council, R. H. Marburger Mount Olive.
Trades Council, Victor H. Melton Murphysboro.
Trades and Labor Assembly, George Trant New Athens.
Trades and Labor Assembly, Louis Carli O'Fallon.
Trades Council, F. R. Baldwin Olney.
Trades and Labor Assembly, E. A. Emrich Ottawa.
Trades Council, Chas. F. Plocker Pana.
Trades and Labor Assembly, Everett Kumpf Pekin.
Trades and Labor Assembly, Walter S. Bush Peoria.
Trades and Labor Council, A. T. Morrison Peru.
Trades Council, J. C. Bell Pinckneyville.
Trades and Labor Assembly, George N. Schmitt Quincy.
Central Labor Union, C. E. Fritz Rockford.
Tri-City Federation of Labor, Ed . Gardner Rock Island.
Trades and Labor Assembly, A. W. Smith South Chicago.
Federation of Labor, R. E. Woodmansee Springfield.
Trades Council, William Menk Staunton.
United Trades and Labor Council, Fred Mowbray Streator.
Central Trades and Labor Assembly, George King Taylorville.
Trades and Labor Council, Thomas R. Owens West Frankfort.
Federation of Labor, J. L. Myers Wheaton.
IOWA.
Trades and Labor Assembly, Albert Ulrich Burlington.
Federation of Labor, H. H. Bye Cedar Rapids.
Trades and Labor Assembly, R. King Centerville.
Tri-City Labor Congress, George C. Campbell Clinton.
Central Labor Union, E. R. Seaman Creston.
Trades and Labor Assembly, M. J. Fitzpatrick Des Moines.
246 WOEKMEK'S COMFEKTSATKHS-.
Trades and Labor Congress, J. H. Krahl Dubuque.
"Trades and Labor Assembly, Neil Murphy Fort Dodge.
Trades and Labor Assembly, Curtis C. Koepf Keokuk.
Trades and Labor Assembly, John Golwitzer Marshalltown.
Trades and Labor Assembly, J. C. Nietzel Muscatine.
Central Labor Union, Millard Lowe Mystic.
Trades Assembly, George A. Fritz Oskaloosa.
Trades and Labor Assembly, G. W. Minor Ottumwa.
Trades and Labor Assembly, J. H. Strief Sioux City.
Central Labor Union, W. A. Moore Waterloo.
KANSAS.
Trades and Labor Congress, Thomas Lane Atchison.
Trades and Labor Council, R. N. Sullivan Emporia.
Central Labor Union, Walter Moberg Fort Scott.
Industrial Labor Council, S. W. Shoemaker Girard.
Central Labor Union, F. M. Sprague. Independence.
Central Labor Union, D. T. Hawkinson Kansas City.
Trades and Labor Council, George B. Edgell Leaven worth.
Trades Council, A. M. Cochren Mulberry.
Central Labor Union, Edward Hammond Parsons.
United Trades and Labor Council, E. P. Livingston. ,. . . . . Pittsburg.
Industrial Council, Clarence Sharon Topeka.
Trades and Labor Assembly, 0. Monteith Wichita.
MARYLAND.
Federation of Labor, George M. Henderson Baltimore.
Trades Council, B. F. Walters Cumberland.
Federation of Labor, D. Snyder Hagerstown.
MASSACHUSETTS.
Central Labor Union, C. E. King Athol.
Central Labor Union, Henry Abrahams ." Boston.
Central Labor Union, F. C. Sherman Bridgewater.
Central Labor Union, Charles E. Lowell Brockton.
Central Labor Union, M. D. Collins Cambridge.
Central Labor Union, John J. Diamond Chelsea.
Central Labor Union, M. A. Morrissey Chicopee.
Central Labor Union, John Kyle Fall River.
Central Labor Union, Patrick J. Conry Fitchburg.
Central Labor Union, Louis Urquhart Gloucester.
Central Labor Union, John Hilbig Greenfield.
Central Labor Union, John Macdougall Haverhill.
Central Labor Union, J. P. Bleasius Holyoke.
Central Labor Union, D. G. Kimmond Lawrence.
Trades and Labor Council, Charles E. Anderson Lowell.
Central Labor Union, John J. Griffin Lynn.
Central Labor Union, John J. Lucey Maiden.
Central Labor Union, Michael J. Flaherty Marlboro.
Central Labor Union, Elliot Willard Milford.
Central Labor Union, Daniel A. Bane Millers Falls.
Central Labor Union, Henry S. Davis New Bedford.
Norfolk County Central Labor Union, E. J. Kelley Norwood.
Central Labor Union, E. R. Stein North Adams.
Central Labor Union, Alfred Asher Northampton.
Central Labor Union, B. T. Powell Pittsfield.
Central Labor Union, Neil MacPhail Quincy .
Central Labor Union, H. N. Pratt Rockland.
Central Labor Union, Norman J. Montgomery Salem.
Central Labor Union, William E. Cotter So. Framingham.
Central Labor Union, D. E. McCarthy Springfield.
Central Labor Union, Thomas Menziea. Taunton.
Central Labor Union, M. J. Ferriter Westfield.
Central Labor Union, G. H. Miller Worcester.
TRADES TJinONS THAT AIDED. 247
MICHIGAN.
Trades Council, Ben Hahn ...Albion.
Trades Council, W. W. Olney Ann Arbor.
Trades and Labor Council, Bernie Ward Battle Creek.
Central Trades Council, Donald A. MacDonald Bay City.
Federation of Labor, Charles J. Mackey Detroit.
Trades and Labor Council, Ferdinand Jorgensen Escanaba.
Central Labor Union, John A. C. Men ton Flint.
Trades and Labor Council, Charles J. Walsh Grand Rapida.
Trades and Labor Council, W. J. Walls Hancock.
Trades and Labor Council, Lu. Anderson Ionia.
Trades Council, Isaac N . Jackson Jackson.
Trades and Labor Council, Charles Schaffer Kalamazoo.
Trades and Labor Council, C. E. Parker Lansing.
Trades Council, Charles D. Moriarity Ludington.
Trades and Labor Council, J. Bos Muskegon.
Central Labor Union, David L. Brown Pontiac.
Trades and Labor Council, Elmer C. Douglas Port Huron.
Federation of Labor, William H. Ferris Saginaw.
MINNESOTA.
Trades and Labor Assembly, Joe Gabion Brainerd.
Federated Trades Assembly, John E. Jensen Duluth.
Trades and Labor Assembly, Henry M. Brown International Falls.
Trades and Labor Assembly, Leslie Sinton Minneapolis.
Trades and Labor Council, William Shilling Red Wing.
Trades and Labor Council, L. G. Gaspard St. Cloud.
Trades and Labor Assembly, George W. Lawson St. Paul.
Trades and Labor Council, J. H. McGrew Virginia.
Trades and Labor Council, H. W. Libby Winona.
NEBRASKA.
Central Labor Union, William Feinauer Fremont.
Central Labor Union, Harry Long Grand Island.
Central Labor Union, Clarence R. Elyea Lincoln.
Central Labor Union, John Polian Omaha.
Centarl Labor Union, J. L. Kubat, South Omaha.
NEVADA.
Central Labor League, W. G. Mason Ely.
Central Trades and Labor Council, W. S. Lumsford Reno.
NEW HAMPSHIRE.
Central Labor Union , Henry A. Smith Berlin.
Central Labor Union, George Evans Concord.
Central Labor Union, Fred I. Gates 1 Keene.
Central Labor Union, Flora E. Reed Lebanon.
Central Labor Union, Thomas F. Thornton Manchester.
Central Labor Union, John Clifford Nashua.
Central Labor Union, Robert V. Noble Portsmouth.
NEW JERSEY.
Central Labor Union, Mark Jacoby Camden.
Union County Trades Council, George J. Reiss Elizabeth.
Hudson County Central Labor Union, Joseph P. O'Lone. .Hoboken.
Essex Trades Council. Henry F. Hilf ers Newark.
Trades and Labor Federation, Wilson MacMullen New Brunswick.
Federated Trades Council, A. F. De Leo Orange.
Trades and Labor Council, J. T. Hannigan Passaic.
United Trades and Labor Council, James Matthews Patersou.
Central Labor Union of Mercer County, Reuben Forker Trenton.
248 WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
OHIO.
Central Labor Union, Bert Pence Akron.
Central Labor Union, R. C. Shaffer Alliance.
Central Trades & Labor Assembly, G. W. Pyle Bellaire.
Guernsey Valley Trades and Labor Assembly, James W.
Gilison Cambridge.
Central Labor Union, H. R. Witter Canton.
Central Labor Union, Charles E. Ackerman Cincinnati.
Federation of Labor, Harry Thomas Cleveland.
Federation of Labor, Herman Werz Columbus.
Trades and Labor Council, Charles W. Brownfield Coshocton.
Central Trades and Labor Council, C. M. Downar Crooksville.
Trades Council, H. Foose Dayton.
Trades and Labor Council, George Smith East Liverpool.
Trades and Labor Council, E. 0. Lloyd East Palestine.
Trades Assembly, Charles E. Scharf Fostoria.
Central Labor Union, Roy Swerdersky Fremont.
Trades and Labor Council, George A. Hill Hamilton.
Labor Council, John H. Hortel Ironton.
Trades and Labor Council, W. F. Batty Lima.
Central Trades Assembly, Roy L. Dupler Logan.
Federation of Labor, C. E. Haury Lorain.
.Trades Council, C. F. Gibbs Mansfield.
Trades and Labor Council, S. T. Dye Marietta.
Trades and Labor Assembly, William B. Sailer Massillon.
Trades and Labor Council, H. W. Naegele Middletown.
Trades and Labor Assembly, C. M. Johnson Newark.
Trades and Labor Assembly, J. W. Knisely New Philadelphia.
Trades and Labor Council, Frank Marshall Niles.
Central Labor Union, E. F. Lamb Norwalk.
Central Labor Council, F. D. Laudeman Portsmouth.
Trades and Labor Assembly, J. C. Kerr Salem.
Trades and Labor Assembly, Fred L. Butts Sandusky.
Trades and Labor Assembly, T. J. Creager Springfield.
Jefferson County Trades and Labor Assembly, A. C. Johns-
ton Steubenville.
Central Labor Union, Thomas Moss Tiffin.
Central Labor Union, John Quinlivan Toledo.
United Labor Congress, Joseph M. Murphy Youngstown.
Central Labor Council, Joseph A. Bauer Zanesville.
OREGON.
Central Labor Council, Len. Lowrey Astoria.
Central Labor Union, J. E. Weckworth Baker.
Central Labor Council, W. E. Johnson Medford.
Central Labor Council, Arthur W. Lawrence Portland.
Trades and Labor Council, Art Artus Salem.
RHODE ISLAND.
Central Labor Union, Archie E. Luther Newport.
Central Trades and Labor Union, Howard L. Barber Pawtucket.
Central Federated Union, Laurence A. Grace Providence.
Central Labor Union, George T. Lord Westerly.
Central Labor Union, William L. Gahan Woonsocket.
TEXAS.
Trades Council, J. B. Stephenson Austin.
Trades and Labor Assembly. T. C. Jennings Beaumont.
Central Labor Union. Jeff. Dulaney Childress.
Central Labor Council, G. C. Edwards Dallas.
Labor Trades Council, R. M. Haley Denison.
Central Labor Union, Henry M. Walker El Paso.
Trades Assembly, R. W. Walker Fort Worth.
Trades Council, G. M. Davis Gainesville.
Labor Council, James P. Walsh Galveston.
TRADES UNIONS THAT AIDED.
Trades Assembly, T. M. Kerbow Greenville.
Labor Council, Frank B. McCurdy Houston.
Trades Council, J. A. Schnorbus Marshall.
Trades and Labor Council, W. M. Dellis Palestine.
Trades Council, J. J. Cunningham Paris.
Trades and Labor Council, William Whelply Port Arthur.
Trades Council, Sid. Murray San Antonio.
Central Labor Union, James L. McGrew Sherman.
Central Labor Council, C. E. White Texarkana.
Trades Council, J. E. Milford Thurber.
Central Labor Union, A. H. B. Corneliusen Waco.
Trades Assembly, J. B. Carter Waco.
WASHINGTON.
Trades and Labor Council, F. E. Hughes Aberdeen.
Central Labor Council, Harry Call Bellingham.
Trades Council Centralia.
Central Labor Council Cle Elum.
Trades Council, A. J. Tiller Ellensburg.
Trades and Labor Council. C. L. Hathaway Elma.
Trades Council, M. T. Alliman Everett.
Trades and Labor Council, Ed. G. Zimmer Hoquiam.
Trades and Labor Council, George T. Stephens North Yakima.
Trades Council, Charles E. Brown Olympia.
Trades Council, J. C. Conlisk Pasco.
Trades and Labor Council, Louis Essmann Racine.
Trades and Labor Council, H. Hartsell Baymond.
Central Labor Council, E. B. Ault Seattle.
Central Labor Union, J. R. Morford Spokane.
Central Labor Council, T. F. Burns Tacoma.
Trades and Labor Council, L. F. Clarke Walla Walla.
WEST VIRGINIA.
Kanawha Valley Central Labor Union, Howard S. Jarrett .. Charleston.
Trades and Labor Assembly, W. J. Murphy Huntingdon.
Central Trades and Labor Council, J. D. Reich Parkersburg.
WISCONSIN.
Trades Council, H. P. Ballard Appleton.
Central Labor Union, Grant Childs Ashland.
Trades Council, K. M. Foltz Beloit.
Trades and Labor Council, Al. Wothe Fond du Lac.
Trades Council, Enoch F. Thornrose Green Bay.
Trades and Labor Council, Wm. E. Stephenson Kenocha.
Trades and Labor Council. George W. Naegle La Crosse.
Federation of Labor, G. W. Bartell Madison.
Central Labor Union, G. H. Thompson Manitowoc.
Federated Trades Council, Frank J . Weber Milwaukee.
Trades and Labor Council, Frank Krempin Neenah.
Trades and Labor Council, Murt Malone Oshkosh.
Trades and Labor Council Racine.
Central Labor Union, Gustav Rahn Sheboygan.
Trades and Labor Assembly, 0. E. Eby Superior.
Central Labor Union, Emil Doerr Watertown.
Federated Trades Council, Harry Kroeger Waukesha.
Central Labor Union, J. E. Cole Wausau.
250 WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
REPRESENTATIVES OF INSURANCE COMPANIES.
CONNECTICUT.
Aetna Life Insurance Co., J. Scofield Howe, vice president;
Ernest C. Higgins, secretary Hartford.
Travelers' Insurance Co., Louis F. Butler, vice president. . .Hartford.
ILLINOIS.
London Guarantee & Accident Co. (Ltd.), F. W. Lawson,
general manager Chicago,
MARYLAND.
Maryland Casualty Co., F. Highlands Burns, second vice
president Baltimore.
MASSACHUSETTS.
Employers' Liability Assurance Corporation (Ltd.) of Lon-
don, Samuel Appleton, United States manager Boston,
MICHIGAN.
Standard Accident Insurance Co., J. H. Thorn, general
superintendent Detroit.
NEW YORK.
Casualty Co. of America, Edwin W. De Leon, president. . . New York City.
Frankfort General Insurance Co. of Germany, C. H. Frank-
lin, United States manager and attorney; Richard Lance,
superintendent liability department New York City.
Fidelity & Casualty Co., Frank E. Law, vice president New York City.
Globe Indemnity Co., A. Duncan Reid, secretary and
general manager; W. J. McCaffrey, superintendent lia-
bility department New York City.
New Amsterdam Casualty Co., W. F. Moore, president New York City.
Royal Indemnity Co., C. F. Frizzell, assistant general
manager; Charles H. Holland, general manager New York City,
United States Casualty Co., Edson S. Lott, president; R. S.
Keelor, M. D., underwriter New York City.
VERMONT.
American Fidelity Co., A. K. Willey, manager statistical
department Montpelier.
WASHINGTON.
Harry Lippman, general insurance Seattle.
NO. 9. BOARDS OF AWARD— WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION COM-
MISSIONS.
STATES HAVING WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION LAWS.
[Boards of award indicated where exist.)
CALIFORNIA.
Industrial accident commission (formerly board), Underwood Building, 525 Market
Street. San Francisco:
A. J. Pillsbury, chairman, Piedmont.
Ira B. Cross, secretary, San Francisco.
Will J. French, San Francisco.
Col. Harris Weinstock, San Francisco.
CONNECTICUT.
Workmen's compensation commission:
Talcott H. Russell, chairman, New Haven.
George B. Chandler, Rocky Hill.
Dr. J. J. Donahue, Norwich.
Edward T. Buckingham, Bridgeport.
F. M. Williams, New Milford.
ILLINOIS.
Industrial board:
H. S. Tanner, Paris.
Peter Augsten, Chicago.
Other appointments to be made.
IOWA.
Iowa industrial commissioner (only one administrative officer):
Warren Garst, Des Moines.
MARYLAND.
Commission to, amend law listed separately.
MASSACHUSETTS.
Industrial accident board, 1 Beacon Street, Boston:
James B. Carroll, chairman.
Dudley M. Holman.
David T. Dickinson.
Edw. F. McSweeney.
Joseph A. Parks.
Robert E. Grandfield, secretary.
MICHIGAN.
Industrial accident board. Oakland Building, Lansing:
John E. Kinnane, chairman, Bay City.
Richard L. Drake, secretary, Lansing.
J. A. Kennedy, Sault Ste. Marie.
Ora E. Reaves, Jackson.
MINNESOTA.
The labor commissioner acts.
NEBRASKA.
Law not operative till voted upon by the people in 1914.
251
252 WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
NEVADA.
Nevada Industrial Commission, Carson City:
Gov. Tasker L. Oddie, chairman.
George B. Thatcher, attorney general.
Edward Ryan, inspector of mines.
H. A. Lemmon, commissioner.
William E. Wallace, commissioner.
John J. Mullin, secretary.
NEW JERSEY.
Has commission for amendment listed separately.
NEW YORK.
State workmen's compensation commission:
Not appointed Feb. 1, 1914.
OHIO.
The Industrial Commission of Ohio (new law designates State Liability Board of
Awards), Columbus:
Wallace D. Yaple, chairman.
M. B. Hammond, vice chairman.
T. J. Duffy.
William C. Archer, secretary.
OREGON.
The Oregon commission:
C. D. Babcock, 257 S. Sixteenth Street, Salem, one of the commissioners.
TEXAS.
Industrial accident board, Austin:
Joseph D. Sayers, chairman, Austin, Tex.
William J. Moran.
Owen P. Pyle.
Carr P. Collins, secretary.
WASHINGTON (STATE).
The industrial insurance commission, Olympia:
Floyd L. Daggett, chairman, Olympia, Wash. i '
A. B. Ernst, Olympia, Wash.
John H. Wallace, Olympia, Wash.
Howard L. Hindley, secretary.
WEST VIRGINIA.
Public service commission, Charleston:
Lee Ott, chairman (commissioner in charge workmen's compensation fund).
Charles H. Bronson.
W. C. Kilmer.
Howard N. Ogden.
R. B. Bernheim, secretary.
WISCONSIN.
Industrial Commission of Wisconsin, Madison:
C. H. Crownhart, chairman.
J. D. Beck.
Fred M. Wilcox.
L. A. Tarrell, chief examiner.
Frank T. McCormick, reporter.
P. J. Watrous, secretary, Madison, Wis.
STATE BOARDS OF AWARDS. 253
COMMISSIONS IN STATES HAVING NO WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION
LAWS.
COLORADO.
Employees' compensation commission, Denver:
Platt Rogers, chairman.
John 0. Osgood.
James Dalrymple.
John F, Pearson.
Harvey E. Garman, secretary.
State Federation of Labor drafting legislation.
DELAWARE.
Had commission.
IDAHO.
Workmen's compensation commission:
(Appointed by governor to investigate and recommend industrial insurance legisl tion
to the legislature — thirteenth session.)
I. C. H. Reynolds, chairman, Spirit Lake.
Walter H. Hanson, Wallace.
E. M. Hoover, treasurer, Boise.
J. P. Nicholas Wardner.
T. W. Rickard, Pocatello.
A. H. Connor, secretary, Sandpoint.
INDIANA.
Workmen's compensation commission:
Henry W. Bullock, attorney at law, chairman, Indianapolis.
John E. Frederick, secretary Kokomo Steel & Iron Co., Kokomo.
Wm. Greene, secretary International Typographical Union No. 1, Indianapolis.
Alfred M. Ogle, president Vandalia Coal Co., Terre Haute.
Chas. Fox, secretary District 11, United Mine Workers of America, Terre Haute.
KENTUCKY.
Law recently introduced.
LOUISIANA.
Employers' liability commission:
Walter J. Burke, chairman, New Iberia.
Leon Locke, Lake Charles.
Robert Roberts, Minden.
Martin Manion, Hennen Building, New Orleans.
W. T. Cristy, New Orleans.
Advisory members:
H. B. Hewes, Jeanerette.
Robert E. Lee, New Orleans.
Ed. J. Gay, Plaquemine.
Oscar Bush, Shreveport.
MAINE.
Official commission, appointed by legislature March 20, 1913, to investigate subject
and report bill to next legislature :
John B. Kehoe, 98 Exchange Street, Portland.
Ray Marston, Skowhegan.
Willis E. Swift, Augusta.
MISSISSIPPI.
Clayton D. Potter, Jackson, Miss., member of legislature, has prepared bill on
workmen's compensation to be introduced next legislature.
254 WOBKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
MISSOURI.
Missouri Senate workmen's compensation commission (second commission):
State senators—
B. L. White, chairman, Marceline.
W. 0. Goodson, secretary, Macon.
R. S. McClintic, Monroe City.
Wm. G. Busby, Carrollton.
A. S. PhiUips, 1605 Pierce Building, St. Louis.
MONTANA.
Had commission.
People's Power League endeavoring to initiate law to go before people next elec-
tion, a year hence. M. McCusker, secretary, Livingston.
NORTH DAKOTA.
Commission appointed by governor:
D. B. Holt, Fargo.
M. N. Thatcher, Fargo.
Fred G. Cleveland, Jamestown.
PENNSYLVANIA.
Industrial accidents commission:
David A. Reed, chairman, Carnegie Building, Pittsburgh.
J. Barry Colahan, jr., 1011 Chestnut Street, Philadelphia.
Morris Williams, 907 Arcade Building, Philadelphia.
Geo. C. Hetzel, Chester.
Francis Feehan, Ferguson Building, Pittsburgh.
John J. Gushing, Monessen.
Francis H. Bohlen, secretary, Bullitt Building, Philadelphia.
PORTO RICO.
Hon. Sanchez Morales, President Executive Council.
Hon. Jose de Diego, speaker of house.
Hon. Wolcott H. Pitkin, attorney general.
Hon. Bills, commissioner of labor.
Hon. A. G. Wolf, associate justice supreme court, Box 1187, San Juan.
TENNESSEE.
Workmen's compensation commission, appointed by governor to report to 1915
legislature:
Hon. W. R. Cole, Nashville.
Prof. G. W. Dyer, Nashville.
J. H. Turner, Nashville.
Jas. A. Fowler, Knoxyille.
T. J. Hoskins, Knoxville.
VERMONT.
To study subject:
Frank E. Howe, Bennington.
Hale K. Darling, Chelsea.
Guy W. Bailey, secretary of state, Essex Junction.
VIRGINIA.
Had committee on uniformity of legislation several years ago.
STATE BOARDS OE AWARDS. 255
STATES IN WHICH LAWS HAVE BEEN ENACTED BUT COMMISSIONS
STILL EXIST TO HELP SECURE AMENDMENTS.
MARYLAND.
[Law defective.]
Employers' liability and workmen's compensation commission:
J Walter Lord, chairman, Maryland Trust Building.
F. W. Wood.
Geo. WMtelock.
David J. Lewis.
C. N. Steigelman.
Frank A. White, secretary, 100 Equitable Building.
NEW JERSEY^
Employers' liability commission, Trenton:
Wm. B. Dickson, president, Montclair.
Samuel Botterill, East Orange.
J. William Clark, Newark.
John T. Cosgrove, Elizabeth.
Walter E. Edge, Atlantic City.
Edward K. Mills, Morristown .
Wm. E. Stubbs, secretary, Trenton.
COMMISSIONS NO LONGER EXISTING IN STATES HAVING NO COMPENSATION LAWS.
DELAWARE.
Employers' liability commission:
T. Allen Hilles, president, Wilmington.
Sylvester D. Townsend, jr., Wilmington.
Thos. F. Flynn, Wilmington.
Alfred B. Moore, Wilmington.
James E. Hoffecker, Smyrna.
Arthur J. Jennings, secretary, Wilmington.
(Above commission appointed in 1911 by the governor. Reported bill of their
findings at the recent session of the general assembly, but the bill was not passed and
the life of the commission terminated.)
Thos. W. Miller, secretary of state, Dover, Del., is interested in literature on the
subject.
MONTANA.
Commission appointed by ex-Gov. Norris during his administration:
J. C. Lowney, Butte.
Neill Collins, Butte.
J. E. McNally, Butte.
Wm. L. Holloway, Helena.
W. F. Meyer, Red Lodge.
J. H. Hall, Helena.
VIRGINIA.
Committee on uniformity of legislation appointed several years ago:
Jas. R. Caton, Alexandria.
Eugene Massie, Richmond.
P. D. Deanes, Windsor.
RETURN TO the circulation desk of any
University of California Library
or to the
NORTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY
Bldg. 400, Richmond Field Station
University of California
Richmond, CA 94804-4698
ALL BOOKS MAY BE RECALLED AFTER 7 DAYS
2-month loans may be renewed by calling
(510)642-6753
1-year loans may be recharged by bringing books
to NRLF
Renewals and recharges may be made 4 days
prior to due date
DUE AS STAMPED BELOW
R 1995
APR 2 1 1998
20,000 (4/94)
U.C. BERKELEY LIBRARIES
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY
Live Music
Archive
Librivox
Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland
Museum of Art
Internet
Arcade
Console Living Room
Open Library
American
Libraries
TV News
Understanding
9/11